Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Access to Mental Health Services

Rachel Hopkins: What steps he is taking to improve access to mental health services.

Jeff Smith: What steps he is taking to improve access to mental health services.

Steve Barclay: We are investing an additional £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24 so that 2 million more people can access NHS-funded mental health support.

Rachel Hopkins: Research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists shows that between July 2021 and July 2022, referrals to child and adolescent mental health services increased by 24%. Labour has set out a fully costed plan to recruit 8,500 new staff. Why have the Government failed to produce their own plan to recruit more mental health staff to reduce waiting times?

Steve Barclay: We are recruiting more mental health workers, with 7,400 more full-time equivalents in September 2022 compared with September 2021. That reflects the significant additional funding we are providing—the extra £2.3 billion going in by 2023-24.

Jeff Smith: Perinatal mental health problems affect one in four new or expectant mothers, and 40% of deaths in the first year after pregnancy are related to mental health. What steps are the Government taking to improve support for women with perinatal mental health needs, particularly in the light of the women’s health strategy?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important subject. As well as the additional investment and extra workforce we are putting into mental health, we are looking at this issue as part of our strategies in other areas—for example, our suicide strategy—and examining our capital investment. There is a range of measures to address this very important issue.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend is aware of the evidence on the use of psychedelic drugs for more effective mental health care. Last month Australia, having assessed the evidence on psilocybin, started the rescheduling process, and Australians suffering from  depression will be able to access this medicine from July. In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has recognised psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression. In Canada, the special access programme allows physicians to request a licence for assisted therapy under certain conditions. Our drug laws remain based on a 50-year-old, unevidenced, prejudiced assessment and nothing else. The Home Office has never commissioned evidence on psilocybin. Does my right hon. Friend understand that this is a primary public health issue, on which he should lead?

Steve Barclay: I recognise the close interest my hon. Friend takes in this matter, and he is right to draw the House’s attention to international best practice. I agree that we should take an evidence-based approach in which we look at the data shared with regulators in other countries, such as Australia. I am happy to draw the point he makes to the attention of our regulators.

Kelly Tolhurst: Anorexia affects many young people. One of my constituents had to give up work to look after her daughter, who was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa and made a number of attempts to overdose—the latest just two weeks ago. The daughter is also suspected to be suffering from an obsessive compulsive disorder and an autism spectrum disorder, but has been told that the wait for diagnosis is over two years. Will my right hon. Friend outline what support we can give my constituent and her family? Have we thought about providing personal budgets, so that if the NHS is unable to treat an individual, they can seek treatment outside the NHS?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I am happy to look into the individual case she describes. Our wider objective in providing extra funding is to ensure that we treat more people, with 2 million more people accessing NHS-funded mental health support by 2023-24 and the number of patients in talking therapies last year up by a fifth from the year before.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Rosena Allin-Khan: There is a mental health staffing crisis of the Government’s own making. Figures out last week show that there are more than 28,000 mental health vacancies in our NHS, which is up on the year before and the year before that. Are we seeing a pattern here? The number of mental health nurses is down 5% since 2010, but do not worry, Mr Speaker: just so the Secretary of State is aware, Labour has a plan to recruit and retain more mental health staff and to get waiting times down. Can he put a word in with the Chancellor in case he wants to nick that too?

Steve Barclay: It is always good to find a plan that the hon. Lady actually agrees with the shadow Health Secretary on. As we know from her questions, that is not always the case, not least on the use of the independent sector. What we do know is that she has a habit of writing her questions before she hears the previous answer. I just reminded the House of the 7,400 more staff in mental health in September 2022 compared with September 2021. Obviously she had written her question before that point.

Bereavement

Matt Warman: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the report by the UK Commission on Bereavement entitled “Bereavement is everyone’s business”, published in October 2022.

Maria Caulfield: I thank the UK Commission on Bereavement and everyone who contributed their experience of bereavement for their input into the report. We are working across Government and with the bereavement sector to consider how the wide range of findings from the report can inform future policy and make a difference to those who are bereaved.

Matt Warman: When my parents died just six weeks apart from each other, I know I would have benefited from practical and emotional support. The UK Commission on Bereavement has a number of excellent recommendations. Does the Minister agree that, among those, the idea of integrating support and information about bereavement into palliative care and end-of-life care is one that the Government should look at taking up?

Maria Caulfield: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this space campaigning for others to have a better experience than he had with the tragic loss of his parents. I can give him an absolute commitment that we are working with partners across health and palliative care to ensure that bereavement support is an integral part of palliative and end-of-life practice. The new Health and Care Act 2022 means that integrated care boards must commission those services, and NHS England has published new statutory guidance on palliative and end-of-life care to give ICBs the information they need, which includes giving bereavement support to those facing a loss.

Doctor Numbers

John Stevenson: What steps he is taking to increase the number of doctors.

Steve Barclay: We have opened five new medical schools in Sunderland, Lancashire, Chelmsford, Lincoln and Canterbury as part of our wider drive to increase the number of doctors.

John Stevenson: Does the Secretary of State agree, first, that we must train enough of our own doctors, rather than depend on overseas doctors? Secondly, does he agree that it is important that the less traditional educational institutions are allowed to open or expand medical schools, as they are often in areas where doctors are in short supply?

Steve Barclay: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we had a 25% increase in the total number of medical school places. On the specific point he raises, we have developed the new apprenticeship route for medical doctors so that we can start to have more training through that route and not just through the undergraduate route.

Valerie Vaz: As well as recruiting doctors, how do we retain doctors? A doctor in my constituency says that at the end of the day he takes home £100 a week. That is less than a decorator. What are the Government doing about retaining good doctors like my constituent?

Steve Barclay: It is worth pointing out to the House that the vacancy rate for doctors has fallen compared with where it was before the pandemic. That is often not the narrative that is put out there, but the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of retention. It is obviously better to retain a doctor, given the cost and time it takes to recruit, and that is about looking at a combination of pay issues, about which we are talking to trade union colleagues, and non-pay issues, which are often a real factor in the quality of work that doctors are doing and often shapes retention issues.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: I am afraid that talk is cheap. I was at Worcester University’s medical school yesterday, where I was told directly by the vice-chancellor that that university, which has great facilities, can only recruit international students because the Government will not fund places for domestic students. The NHS has asked for medical school places to be doubled. Labour has a plan to double medical school places, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status. Why do the Government not swallow their pride and adopt Labour’s plan in next week’s Budget?

Steve Barclay: First, as I said a moment ago, we are funding a 25% increase in medical undergraduate places, and we have given a commitment to a workforce plan, as the Chancellor set out in the autumn statement. The question that the shadow Secretary of State should address is his party’s opposition to international recruitment. We have more than 45,000 doctors who have been recruited internationally, yet the Leader of the Opposition says he wants to move away from international recruitment, which is an important source of additional doctors.

Cardiac Arrest

Mary Glindon: What steps his Department has taken to improve survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases.

Helen Whately: There are 60,000 suspected cardiac arrests every year, and I want more people to survive them. That is why we are increasing the number of defibrillators around the county. We now have over 46,000 defibrillators in England, and in December we announced a new £1 million community defibrillators fund to boost that number by at least 1,000.

Mary Glindon: I am pleased that the Government have committed to a £1 million fund to increase the number of defibrillators in the community. However, 72% of sudden cardiac arrests take place in the home, less affluent areas have lower access to public defibrillators and access is difficult in rural areas. Will the Minister make it her policy to require all new buildings, including residential accommodation, to have a defibrillator in the same way that smoke alarms are required?

Helen Whately: A specific objective of the community defibrillators fund is to make sure that defibrillators are installed in places where they are most needed, particularly places where there is higher footfall, as well as places where people are at greater risk of cardiac arrest. That is appropriate to make sure that we have defibrillators where they are most needed, so that we can reduce the number of people dying from cardiac arrest.

Paul Bristow: Two great organisations in Peterborough, Gemma’s Hearts and the Brotherhood Foundation, exist to try to place more defibrillators in the community, such as those at the Lime Tree pub in Walton and the Chestnuts community centre in Eastfield. How will the community defibrillators fund work with voluntary organisations such as the two that I have mentioned to ensure that we have equitable access across places like Peterborough?

Helen Whately: It is fantastic to hear about organisations in my hon. Friend’s community that, like many around the country, are acting at the grassroots to increase the number of defibrillators. Very soon, we will publish the criteria for the fund that I have just announced, opening it up for bids from organisations such as those, and I look forward to bids from them.

New Hospitals

David Simmonds: What progress his Department has made on building 40 new hospitals.

Afzal Khan: What his Department’s (a) budget and (b) timetable is for the delivery of 40 new hospitals.

Emma Lewell-Buck: What his Department’s (a) budget and (b) timetable is for the delivery of 40 new hospitals.

Steve Barclay: The Government are committed to building 40 new hospitals, which is why we have confirmed an initial £3.7 billion for the first four years of the new hospital programme.

David Simmonds: One of those 40 new hospitals is Hillingdon Hospital. At the start of this year, Hillingdon Council granted planning consent for the proposed new hospital, which is much awaited by my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when we might expect building work to commence?

Steve Barclay: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been to Hillingdon to look at the scheme. I am aware of how essential it is to his local area. He will know that on 22 February, the Prime Minister spoke at Prime Minister’s questions of the Government’s commitment to building 40 new hospitals, and I hope to announce something on that very shortly.

Afzal Khan: The conditions at North Manchester General Hospital continue to worsen. Last month, theatres were forced to close for six weeks following a ceiling collapse. It is four years since the Government announced the rebuild under the new hospital programme, but little  progress has been made. In January, the leader of Manchester City Council wrote to the Secretary of State offering to host a meeting to discuss the project. Will he commit to accepting the invitation?

Steve Barclay: I or another member of the ministerial team will, of course, meet the leader of Manchester council to discuss this. We are making progress. The hon. Gentleman will have seen progress, for example, at the Royal Liverpool and the Northern Centre for Cancer Care, but I confirm our commitment to the 40 hospitals programme and hope to say more on that shortly.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I heard the responses from the Secretary of State, and it must be really hard for him to keep up the pretence about these mythical hospitals. Here is the reality of what is happening in hospitals around the country. South Tyneside District Hospital was award winning. Despite widespread opposition from all of us at the Save South Tyneside Hospital campaign, we have seen a loss of key services and a downgrading of other services. Despite the work of the amazing staff, the hospital now requires improvement. Why is his Government forcing that decline?

Steve Barclay: The Government have committed an initial £3.7 billion, which indicates our commitment to the new hospital programme. As I said, I will have more to say on that shortly.

Peter Bone: Kettering General Hospital serves my constituency, and work has already started on building a new hospital—one of the Boris hospitals—so I do not know what all the fuss is about. The Government are getting on and doing the job. Is that correct?

Steve Barclay: It is. As my hon. Friend will know from another of my visits, which was with him to Kettering, the enabling works are progressing. That is in no small part a tribute to the work that he and neighbouring MPs have done to strongly make the case for Kettering. I know that he will continue to do so, and I look forward to working with him on that.

Health Inequalities

Rupa Huq: What steps he is taking to help tackle health inequalities.

Neil O'Brien: We announced in January that we will publish a major conditions strategy, which will apply a geographical lens to each condition to address disparities in health outcomes. We have doubled the duty on cigarettes since 2010 and now have the lowest smoking rate on record. We are investing an extra £900 million through the drugs strategy, increasing funding by 40%, and to fight obesity we have introduced the sugar tax and measures such as the extra £330 million for school sport.

Rupa Huq: The daily dump of WhatsApp messages in the papers reminds us of covid and the disproportionate deaths suffered by black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. What with that and the figures showing a  20-year gap between life expectancies in our nation’s most affluent and poorest wards, why is it that the Government scrapped a proposed White Paper on health inequalities?

Neil O'Brien: As I just said, we are driving forward all that work through the major conditions paper. In addition, we have the Start for Life programme, with another £300 million to improve young people’s start in life. We are absolutely committed to tackling health disparities and driving forward work on all fronts.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Vaping was designed as a stop-smoking device for adult smokers, but the flavours, colours and disposable vapes have become a fad for children, encouraging those who have never smoked to take up vaping. What are the Government doing to prevent that?

Neil O'Brien: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is something that we are looking at very closely, as she knows from previous conversations. While vaping can be an aid in quitting smoking—it helped about 800,000 people to do so last year—we must stop its use being driven up among children.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Andrew Gwynne: We are just 24 days away from a new financial year. Last week, more than 30 public health leaders said that the delay to releasing the public health allocation for 2023-24 was
“putting public health services at risk”.
Early years support, addiction treatment and stop-smoking services should not have to pay the price of this Minister’s incompetence. He must apologise for treating councils and the health of our communities with such contempt. When will the public health grant be announced?

Neil O'Brien: The public health grant will be announced within days, not weeks. When it is announced, the Opposition will see that, as well as generously funding public health, we will be funding an extra £900 million on drugs spending to transform treatment and an extra £300 million through the Start for Life programme. We will continue to ramp up support for public health.

Childhood Obesity

Lee Anderson: What steps he is taking to help reduce childhood obesity.

Nicola Richards: What steps he is taking to help reduce childhood obesity.

Neil O'Brien: The Government are committed to addressing childhood obesity. We have introduced calorie labelling for on-the-go food and brought in the sugar tax. To drive up activity, we are spending £330 million a year on school sport through the PE premium and investing £300 million in new facilities through the youth investment fund. We are also spending £150 million a year on healthy food schemes such as school fruit and vegetables, nursery milk and the Healthy Start scheme.

Lee Anderson: A top local chef in Ashfield agrees with me that cooking meals from scratch is far cheaper and more nutritious than having processed foods and ready meals. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to start teaching children basic cooking skills in school so that they can enjoy a healthier diet as part of our fight against obesity?

Neil O'Brien: My hon. Friend is totally right. As well as the funding that I mentioned for healthy eating in schools, cooking and nutrition are part of the national curriculum from key stages 1 to 3, which aims to teach children how to cook and apply those principles of healthy eating, but I am sure there is more that we can do together.

Nicola Richards: The announcement of the Government-backed trial in Wolverhampton to introduce a Better Health: Rewards app is welcome, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), who has campaigned hard for it. My constituency also suffers from poor health outcomes, including excessive levels of childhood obesity, with one in three year 6 children being overweight or obese. How will the Minister monitor the success of the trial? Will he consider extending it to areas such as West Bromwich East?

Neil O'Brien: The Better Health: Rewards pilot that we are funding in Wolverhampton is very exciting, and more than 10,000 residents have already registered with the app. We will be monitoring the lessons of the pilot closely and looking at how we can apply them more broadly.

Jim Shannon: For such families it is about not necessarily the right food, but the cheapest food, which means that, in many cases, young children become obese through no fault of their own. What can be done to help families to buy healthier foods on a budget that is often minimal?

Neil O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. As well as the actions that we are taking on healthy eating and obesity, that is exactly why we are spending £55 billion to help households and businesses with their energy bills this winter—one of the biggest packages in Europe. It is also why we have the £900 cost of living payment for 8 million poorer households, we are increasing the national living wage to its highest ever level, and we are spending £26 billion on the cost of living support this year. He is completely right and I commend his work on it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: The Scottish Government aim to halve childhood obesity by 2030, but dealing with the consequences of a poor diet alone is not enough. It is essential to address the underlying causes, such as child poverty. What representations has the Minister made to his Cabinet colleagues about the Department for Work and Pensions and the damaging effects of some of its policies on public health outcomes?

Neil O'Brien: I met the SNP’s public health lead last week and had an excellent conversation with her. As well as the sugar tax, we have introduced calorie labelling; volume and location restrictions on high fat, salt and sugar products, which come in from October; the advertising watershed from 2025; and all those other measures, such as school sport and the youth investment fund. We have done all that because we share exactly those concerns about obesity and we are driving forward work to tackle it.

Waiting Times: Cancer

Tim Farron: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of waiting times for cancer referrals, diagnosis and treatment.

Helen Whately: More people are coming forward to get checked for cancer. Last year, more than 10,000 urgent GP referrals were made per working day and more than 100,000 patients were diagnosed with cancer at an earlier stage, when it is easier to treat.

Tim Farron: I thank the Minister for her answer. In south Cumbria, 27% of people diagnosed with cancer wait more than two months for their first treatment, and in north Cumbria that figure is 44%. Let us imagine how terrifying it is for someone to be told that they have a dangerous disease, but that they may need to wait two months for the first intervention—people are dying needlessly. I draw her attention to the campaign run jointly by the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy and the Express, which seeks a £1 billion boost to increase capacity and update technology in radiotherapy. Will she meet me to specifically consider the bid for a radiotherapy satellite unit at the Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal, so that we can cut waiting times and save lives?

Helen Whately: As the hon. Gentleman said, if someone suspects that they have cancer, it is extremely worrying for them to have to wait for a diagnosis—or for the all-clear, as happens for the majority of people—or, if they have had their diagnosis, for treatment. That is why we are working hard to speed up access to cancer diagnosis and treatment, and we are looking at all the options to do that. To give him some examples: NHS England is driving ahead to open new community diagnostic centres, 92 of which are already operational; rolling out faecal immunochemical testing for people with possible lower gastrointestinal tract cancer; and rolling out teledermatology to speed up the diagnosis of skin cancer. We are also seeing backlogs coming down.

Ambulance Response Times

Antony Higginbotham: What steps he is taking to improve ambulance response times.

Sarah Atherton: What steps he is taking to improve ambulance response times.

Steve Barclay: We published the urgent and emergency care recovery plan, which set out a number of measures to improve patient flow within hospitals, which has an  impact on ambulance performance. In addition, we are purchasing 800 new ambulances, which will be on the road this year.

Antony Higginbotham: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in 2007, the last Labour Government closed the accident and emergency at Burnley General Teaching Hospital. When I speak to my constituents about ambulance wait times, the one thing that they always return to is bringing back the A&E at Burnley, which the Labour Government took away. I have raised this issue with Health Ministers since the day I was elected, so will he set out whether it will ever be possible to bring back the A&E that Labour closed? Will he meet me to discuss it?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the consequences of closures such as that, PFI or other issues that are still felt in communities such as Burnley. He will also know that it is for the integrated care board to look at commissioning decisions and I know that he will make his case powerfully to that board.

Sarah Atherton: The Welsh Labour Government have a service level agreement with the Welsh ambulance service to hand over patients to hospital within 15 minutes. At the Wrexham Maelor Hospital, this target is consistently missed, and a recent handover took eight hours 36 minutes. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government need to stop playing the blame game and start working in partnership for the betterment of patients?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an extremely powerful point. It is not only those targets in Wales that are being missed. She will know that people are almost twice as likely to be waiting for treatment in the Labour-run Welsh NHS than they are in England: 21.3% in Wales compared with 12.8% in England. She will also know that the number of two-year waits for operations in Wales, at over 50,000, is considerably higher than that in England, which is below 2,000.

Helen Morgan: On 30 January, the Secretary of State agreed to meet me and my colleagues who represent the other parts of Shropshire to discuss the particularly acute issues that we have been seeing at our hospitals. That meeting is not in the diary. Will he commit to arranging that as soon as possible, so that we can get these issues addressed?

Steve Barclay: I apologise to the hon. Lady because she raises a perfectly fair point. I will do all I can to expedite that meeting.

NHS Backlogs: Eye Healthcare

Marsha de Cordova: What assessment his Department has made of the impact of NHS backlogs on eye healthcare.

Neil O'Brien: The elective recovery plan sets out how we are tackling backlogs, including in eye care. As well as having over 4,900 more doctors and 11,000 more nurses than last year, we also have 92 community diagnostic centres operational and 89 surgical hubs, and we are boosting capacity in 180 trusts with expanded wards and modular theatres. Two-year waits have been virtually eliminated, and we now aim to eliminate 18-month waits by April.

Marsha de Cordova: The backlogs have meant that the number of patients waiting for ophthalmology treatment has increased by 41% in the last three years, and that is over 630,000 people in England. Average waiting times have increased substantially, and the number of patients starting treatment within 18 weeks of referral has dropped to 62%. We know that delays to treatment can and will lead to avoidable sight loss, and we need a plan to tackle the eye care crisis in the NHS. I recently visited the fantastic eye department at St Thomas’s Hospital, which is doing an incredible job in managing this. Will the Minister back my plan for a Bill and visit the brilliant service that it is delivering?

Neil O'Brien: This is exactly why we are investing the extra £8 billion in elective recovery. Ophthalmology 52-week waits are coming down from 42,000 to just under 27,000. But can I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her passion for this subject? We had a Westminster Hall debate the other day and she had to run to be there—such is her passion—but she made it. I thank her for all her work on this matter.

James Wild: When my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary joined me at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, he saw the new West Norfolk eye centre, which is enabling an extra 2,000 appointments and 2,000 more injections every year to help to deal with the backlogs. Does that not just demonstrate the difference that new buildings can make to better patient care, but underline the importance of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital being added to the Government’s new hospitals building programme, which I know he is working hard to achieve?

Neil O'Brien: The Secretary of State will have taken note of my hon. Friend’s representations.

Hormone Replacement Therapy: Cost

Kirsten Oswald: What steps he is taking to help reduce the cost of hormone replacement therapy for people with menopause symptoms.

Maria Caulfield: This is a great opportunity to remind the House that, from 1 April, women will be able to apply for an HRT prepayment prescription for less than £20 a year to pay for all their HRT, whether they are on patches, gels or dual hormones.

Kirsten Oswald: Although these cost reductions are welcome, England is still the only UK nation not to offer free prescriptions. Instead, the UK Government are penalising those who are experiencing menopause who need these medications to improve their symptoms. Will the Minister not consider following Scotland’s lead and scrap prescription charges to better provide accessible menopause support?

Maria Caulfield: I remind the hon. Lady that about 60% of women in England who are on hormone replacement therapy are already exempt from prescription charges, but we are reducing the cost by hundreds of pounds a year for the remaining women who do pay. We respect the Scottish Government’s decision to provide  free prescriptions, but it would cost us in England £651 million a year to provide free paracetamol to millionaires and we do not think that is the best use of taxpayer money.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Liz Kendall: With International Women’s Day tomorrow, I want to pay tribute to the menopause warriors—all the amazing individual women and organisations who have forced this issue up the agenda, including my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). It was her private Member’s Bill that made Ministers finally agree to cut the cost of HRT prescriptions, but questions remain. Will all products that help with menopause symptoms be eligible for the prescription prepayment scheme? What are Ministers doing to end the ongoing and unacceptable shortages in HRT that are causing women such anxiety, and if this issue is such a priority for the Government, why has not the menopause taskforce met since June last year—let me warn the Minister, the warriors do not want to wait?

Maria Caulfield: It is a shame that, on International Women’s Day, the shadow Minister cannot welcome the progress we are making on the menopause. Labour could have done this. We are the first Government to reduce the cost of HRT for women. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), wants to listen because this is important for women. All licensed HRT products will be available on the prepayment certificate. On the issue of shortages, over 70 products are available to women. Last year, 19 of them were facing a shortage. Thanks to the work of this Government, that is down to five products, and Utrogestan, a product widely used by women, is now back in stock and is being distributed to pharmacies. We are passionate about making HRT more available. There has been a 50% increase in the number of women getting HRT prescriptions. That is a tremendous success for women and we are reducing the cost.

Members: Correspondence

Esther McVey: When he plans to reply to the letter of 24 January from the right hon. Member for Tatton on non-covid excess deaths.

Neil O'Brien: In my letter to my right hon. Friend, I noted that it is likely that a combination of factors has contributed to potential excess deaths, including high flu prevalence, ongoing covid-19, and the disruption to the treatment and detection of conditions such as heart disease. But I know she is very thoughtful about this and follows it closely, and I will endeavour to get her more details.

Esther McVey: I am pleased my question has now resulted in a response, for which I am grateful. However, from that response, I was none the wiser as to how the Government have explained the non-covid excess deaths we have seen. So can the Minister give us an insight into the reasons for the non-covid excess deaths since the pandemic?

Neil O'Brien: Even if we just take one disease such as cardiovascular disease, there was disruption to screening, to referrals and to treatment from the covid pandemic. It was noted at the time that that would happen and there would be consequences from it, but let me set out in more detail to my right hon. Friend all the exact facts and figures on this, because I know she has been following it closely.

Gareth Thomas: When the Minister dug out the letter from the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), I wonder whether he also stumbled upon my letter of 8 February to the Secretary of State about the desperate need for new intensive care investment at Northwick Park Hospital in my constituency, and whether he might expedite a reply on that issue.

Neil O'Brien: I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s question will indeed expedite it.

Primary Care Staff Numbers

Kieran Mullan: What progress his Department has made on increasing the number of primary care staff.

Layla Moran: What steps is he taking to increase the number of GPs.

Robert Courts: What progress his Department has made on increasing the number of primary care staff.

Steve Barclay: Since March 2019, GPs have recruited over 25,000 staff such as pharmacists, physiotherapists and mental health practitioners, and we are on track to hit our 26,000 additional staff commitment.

Kieran Mullan: As a doctor myself, I will be very happy to see one of those many fantastic professionals the Secretary of State mentioned, including pharmacists and physios, in the primary care setting, but I understand from local GPs that patients do not always have the confidence to do that and 111 is not necessarily directing people to see the wider team. Can we ensure 111 is set up to direct people to different professionals, and can we do something to promote and educate the public on how fantastic that wider healthcare team is in primary care?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I commissioned through NHS England a review of 111. It was initially designed for a different purpose. That allows the GP service to be the front door it has become in the NHS. Through the chief executive of Milton Keynes University Hospital, we have done significant work on the NHS app, so it can better enable patients to get to the right place for the care they need.

Layla Moran: In January, over 45,000 people in Oxfordshire waited more than two weeks to see their GP and 12,000 waited over a month. The top reason given when I visited surgeries was that they simply cannot recruit the doctors they need. For example, Kennington health centre has been forced to close part  time because it cannot find a replacement for a retiring partner. That is clearly unsustainable. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing a weighting for GPs in areas of high cost of living outside London? Will he meet me to discuss the specific issues in Oxfordshire?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Member is right to highlight the pressure on primary care, which is why, in the answer I gave a moment ago, I said it is also about looking at the wider skills mix within primary care. She mentions doctors specifically. We have 2,200 more doctors in general practice than before the pandemic. It is about having the right skills mix alongside the doctors to meet the significant increased demand since the pandemic.

Robert Courts: Demand for GP appointments in Oxfordshire is indeed acute. It is driven in part by the need to continue to treat people with long-term medical conditions. Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to rebalance the system, so that instead of dealing with people when they present with acute symptoms, more is done to ensure people can be treated at the primary and community level?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend highlights an absolutely brilliant point, one I am extremely seized of, which is: how do we get detection much sooner, looking at genomics, screening and identifying issues before the patient is even necessarily aware that they have a condition. Early care delivers far better patient outcomes but it is also far cheaper to deliver. That prevention, as he highlights, is extremely important.

Luke Pollard: The primary care crisis in Plymouth is getting worse, but there is a cross-party solution in Plymouth, which is to build a new super health hub, the Cavell centre, in the city centre. The Government have withdrawn the £41 million funding for that, but the Minister’s predecessor offered to put pressure on Devon’s integrated care board to see what could be funded locally and whether there is a national-local partnership that could deliver this pioneering pilot project, which could really improve healthcare in Plymouth that would be a model for the rest of the country. Will the Secretary of State look at Devon’s ICB and whether he could put pressure on that ICB to fund that pioneering project?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman reasonably highlights that the commissioning is a decision for the ICB, but also rightly draws attention to the opportunity to look at different models, for example, how we look across communities at economies of scale, and how we combine that with modern methods of construction to deliver projects far more quickly. I am happy to look, with Devon ICB, at the issue he raises.

Theresa Villiers: I really welcome the increase in patient care staff in GP practices in my constituency, but can I appeal to the Secretary of State to fix the problem with the taxation of GPs’ pensions, which is forcing many into early retirement just when we need their services the most?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is a very experienced parliamentarian and will know that issues of tax are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I draw her attention to “Our plan for patients”, which sets out a package of NHS pension scheme measures.

Rachael Maskell: NHS dentists form a really important part of the primary care workforce. However, in places such as York, we have a complete desert, where my constituents just cannot receive NHS dentistry. What is the Secretary of State going to do for my constituents, so that their oral health needs are addressed?

Steve Barclay: We will set out to the House in due course a recovery plan to deal in particular with primary care but also dentistry. We recognise that, notwithstanding the fiscal support that was offered to protect dentistry through the pandemic, it is an area of acute interest across the House. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), will be saying more on that very shortly.

Cost of Living: Mental Health

Angela Crawley: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the cost of living crisis on long-term trends in levels of mental ill health.

Maria Caulfield: Last year, £50 million was invested through the promotion of the better mental health fund in 40 local authorities that have the most deprived parts of the country. That is to boost prevention and early intervention and to support those hardest hit by the pandemic and the cost of living.

Angela Crawley: The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland found that 52% of Scots are concerned about the impact that rising prices are having on their mental health. Poverty is a key driver of poor mental health, and those already struggling with poor mental health and money worries are likely to be the hardest hit. What discussions has the Minister had with her Cabinet colleagues on the consequences of policies, such as the punitive sanctions regime, that are shown to increase anxiety and harm to people’s mental health?

Maria Caulfield: This Government have been supporting people with the cost of living through the £37 billion package, and £15 billion of targeted support for those most in need. That includes £150 of help with council tax, £400 for electricity, the 8 million people supported by the £1,200 payment and paying towards half of people’s energy costs. This Government are serious about helping people with the cost of living at this time.

Theo Clarke: I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling mental ill health, in particular the recent funding that we have received in Stafford for a new crisis assessment centre at St George’s Hospital. What further steps are the Government taking to improve access to mental health support, especially in our schools?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for her hard work securing that funding for the crisis centre in her constituency. These centres make such a difference, because they are based in the community and can intervene at an earlier stage when someone is facing difficulty. They are on top of measures such as our  mental health ambulances, which will also respond to people in crisis, and supporting our local communities to deal with mental health as well as those with a mental illness.

Access to Primary Care

Paulette Hamilton: What steps he is taking to improve patient access to primary care.

Neil O'Brien: We have increased real-terms spending on general practice by more than a fifth since 2015. We are growing the workforce, with 2,200 more doctors and 25,000 extra primary care clinicians compared with 2019. We have the most GPs in training ever, up from 2,600 to 4,000. In January there were 11% more appointments in general practice than in the same month before the pandemic. I pay tribute to the work that general practitioners are doing.

Paulette Hamilton: Under the Tories, the number of qualified GPs has fallen to a record low, which is hitting local communities across the UK very hard. In January, in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale, more than 2,000 people had to wait more than a month for a GP appointment. Is it not the case that the longer the Tories are in power, the longer patients will have to wait?

Neil O'Brien: As well as the 2,200 extra doctors in primary care, I mentioned the 25,000 extra other clinicians. That means that in the hon. Lady’s constituency there are 55% more staff working directly with patients than before.

Chloe Smith: At a time when GP and A&E services are under pressure, I am pleased to see the ministerial team’s focus on helping people to see a doctor when they need to. Does the Minister agree that walk-in centres, such as ours in Norwich city centre, are helpful, popular and necessary?

Neil O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; walk-in centres are a key part of primary care. We are looking at how they can do more, and I pay tribute to all the work they are already doing.

Topical Questions

Tonia Antoniazzi: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Steve Barclay: On Friday I was proud to announce the winners of the third round of the artificial intelligence in health and care award. Winners included projects within the NHS that identify women at risk of stillbirth, help with neurological conditions, find lung blockages and assess the quality of transplant organs, as well as a number of projects focused on cancer, identifying people’s predisposition and its presence. Since its inception in 2019, the AI in health and care award has invested more than £123 million in 86 promising projects, supporting more than 300,000 patients. AI will come to save countless lives in the NHS in the years to come, and that begins with the investment today.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Secretary of State should know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for access to medical cannabis under prescription, for children with intractable epilepsy. The situation is as intolerable as ever. Both product supply and cost are causing families great pain, and their children are desperate. I urge the Secretary of State to meet me to discuss convening a roundtable to help identify solutions to the crisis of lack of access. I am still awaiting a response from his Minister from 18 January 2023.

Steve Barclay: I am very aware of the hon. Lady’s work as chair of the APPG, so I am not surprised that she asks about that important issue, which she has been assiduous in raising. I will flag up the follow-up with my ministerial colleague. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that the National Institute for Health and Care Research remains open to research proposals in this area. I encourage her to ensure through her work on the APPG that bids are made to generate the evidence that the clinicians who make decisions on prescribing need.

Sarah Atherton: Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was taken out  of special measures in 2020 without any tangible improvements. Last week, the board walked out en masse because it no longer had faith in the Welsh Labour Government. The health service is now back in special measures. The Welsh Government run the NHS in Wales, so if the First Minister of Wales were to ask, would the UK Government step in to support them?

Steve Barclay: We are always happy to assist colleagues across the United Kingdom as part of our commitment to the Union. My hon. Friend is right to highlight current performance in Wales. As I have said, patients are waiting twice as long for hospital treatment in Wales as in England, and more than 50,000 people in Wales are waiting for more than two years for their operation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: When nurses and paramedics voted to take strike action, the Secretary of State refused to negotiate and said that the pay review body’s decision was final. He has now U-turned, but not before 144,000 operations and appointments were cancelled through his incompetence. Will he now apologise to patients for this avoidable disruption?

Steve Barclay: What the hon. Gentleman omits to remind the House is that at the time the demand from trade unions was for a 19% consolidated pay rise, which is very different from the basis on which talks have been entered into. The point is that we are in discussions with trade union colleagues. Trade unions and the Government have a shared purpose—to address the very real challenges that we recognise the NHS workforce have faced, particularly in the context of the pandemic—and a shared desire, which is to focus on patients and ensure that they get the right care to support them.

Wes Streeting: I think patients know who to trust, and it is nurses, not the Secretary of State. The Government have still learned nothing: despite a 98% vote in favour of strikes, the Secretary of State was sent to meet junior  doctors without a mandate from the Prime Minister to negotiate. What is the point of this Health Secretary if he is in office but not in charge?

Steve Barclay: I have come to the House literally from a meeting with the trade unions: I met the NHS Staff Council this morning. Once again, hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are writing their questions before they see what is actually happening.

Lee Anderson: Sean Lynk, aged 30, in Ashfield, took his own life just before Christmas. No one saw it coming. Male suicide takes the lives of 12 young men every day in this country. It is the biggest killer of young males under the age of 40. Sean’s father Graham is coming next week to watch me speak in a Westminster Hall debate on male suicide, so could somebody from the Health team please meet Graham and me next Monday?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. We are launching a prevention of suicide strategy, and male suicide will be a particular focus, as it is a high-risk group. The debate next week will be answered by a Minister in the Department for Education, because it relates specifically to the national curriculum, but I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: Unprotected sun exposure causes skin cancer, and some 16,000 cases are diagnosed each year. Affordable sunscreen is therefore essential for protection. Will the Secretary of State help to tackle the issue by supporting the Sun Protection Products (Value Added Tax) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) that would remove VAT on sun protection products?

Helen Whately: Sun exposure is one of the most significant causes of cancer. That is one reason why we are working so hard with the NHS to reduce backlogs for people who are waiting for cancer diagnosis and treatment, including by rolling out teledermatology across the NHS to reduce diagnosis times. However, the hon. Gentleman’s question about VAT and skin cancer is a matter for the Treasury.

John Penrose: Finding and fixing the underlying causes of health inequalities has defeated Governments of all types  for decades. Less well-off British families still live significantly shorter, sicker lives than richer families, cramping their life chances and making it harder to avoid or escape poverty. The long-expected health inequalities White Paper is essential to changing that. Does the Secretary of State expect it to be published this month? If not, will he meet me to discuss it?

Steve Barclay: As we heard earlier from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), the major conditions strategy report will deal with those issues. However, it is also important to consider the variation in performance between integrated care boards and how we can raise the bottom quartile to the level of the top quartile—there  is far too much variation within the NHS—and to be data-driven, so that when it comes to genomics and screening we can target the outliers more precisely. That is what is behind the issue to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention.

Gregory Campbell: Will the 10-year cancer plan feature the distinctive approach that is required in relation to the early diagnosis of brain tumours?

Helen Whately: Cancer will be a substantial part of the major conditions strategy. We will be looking at the major causes of ill health in the country, of which cancer is, of course, one. Part of that will involve ensuring that we are good at diagnosing cancer, because the earlier it is diagnosed, the more treatable it is, and hence the better the outcomes for people with cancer will be.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Health and Care Committee.

Steve Brine: I welcome today’s announcement of the appointment of Professor Deanfield as the Government’s prevention champion with a focus on cardiovascular disease, one of the main causes of which is, of course, smoking. May I ask where we are with an updated tobacco control plan, and whether the Minister will look again at the introduction of a “smoke-free fund” paid for by the tobacco industry to boost those new public health budgets?

Neil O'Brien: We will be setting out our next steps on smoking shortly, but we already have the lowest smoking level on record: it has fallen to 13%, partly as a result of the doubling of duty on cigarettes and partly owing to the introduction of a minimum excise tax. We will be investing £35 million in the NHS this year to ensure that all smokers who are admitted to hospital are given NHS-funded tobacco treatment.

Jim Shannon: Recent analysis from Macmillan Cancer Support shows that 2022 was the worst year on record for cancer waiting times. Will the Minister consider the introduction of an urgent support package for UK cancer services in the upcoming Budget to support our hard-working staff and to ensure that there is additional capacity to deal with the current pressures on the system?

Helen Whately: It is indeed a worrying experience for people to be waiting to know whether they have cancer or, having received a diagnosis, to be waiting for treatment. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that more people are currently coming forward for cancer checks, more people are being treated for cancer, and the NHS is reducing some of the backlogs following the pandemic.

David Evennett: I welcome the Government’s actions to deal with obesity, but it remains an increasing health issue for our nation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that educating children and parents about healthy eating should be a top priority—

Steve Barclay: rose—

David Evennett: —and may I urge his Department to increase its campaigns on the consequences of obesity?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend’s question was so good that I was eager to answer it early. He is right to highlight this issue, which is being dealt with as part of a wider thrust within Government work on prevention, which is how we can empower the patient. That means getting more data to patients and using genomics and screening to ensure that they are better informed and can therefore opt to take decisions on healthy eating, rather than the state trying to impose those decisions on them in a top-down manner.

Judith Cummins: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on osteoporosis and bone health. Our recent report, supported by the Royal Osteoporosis Society, showed that an investment of just £27 million pounds a year in fracture liaison services would deliver more than £600 million pounds of savings for the NHS over five years. Will the Minister meet me and the ROS to discuss our report, and will he commit himself to ending the postcode lottery by providing 100% coverage for FLS for over-50s in England?

Steve Barclay: I am happy for a member of the ministerial team to meet the hon. Lady, who has made a compelling case about the return on investment. We will obviously need to scrutinise it in more detail, and I am sure that my colleagues will look forward to doing so.

Rehman Chishti: The Secretary of State is aware of Medway’s case for being part of the Government’s hospital building programme. It was the hardest-hit area during covid-19, and it has some of the greatest health inequalities in the country, and one of the busiest accident and emergency units in Kent. Will the Secretary of State visit Medway with me to witness our urgent need, so that we can be part of that hospital building programme for the future?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issues in Medway and those in Kent as a whole. When I met the chief executive of Maidstone Hospital yesterday, we discussed some of the innovation that it has introduced and the benefits of that innovation across the board. As for the new hospitals programme, I remind my hon. Friend of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February, when he confirmed the Government’s commitment to that programme.

Jeff Smith: Every day, the families of women who took the drug Primodos in the 1960s and ’70s continue to suffer the consequences of a lifetime of disability. Baroness Cumberlege’s review made it clear that Primodos caused avoidable harm and that the families should be given redress, so why have the Government recently refused three mediation requests on behalf of those families?

Maria Caulfield: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have huge sympathy for those affected by Primodos. He will also know that there is a legal case at the moment so I am unable comment at this time, but I am happy to discuss it with him further.

Richard Fuller: Over the past year or so, Bedfordshire’s fire service and ambulance service have taken innovative steps to co-operate   to bring response times down. They are now working on a plan to deepen that co-operation. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a meeting with the leaders of the fire service and ambulance service in due course when that plan is ready?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the community services that we are doing as part of our urgent and emergency recovery plan, looking at how we deliver care quicker through innovative models. One of those involves better co-operation with the fire service.

Samantha Dixon: York and Chester have many similarities, and it would appear that a complete absence of any access to dental services is another one. Can I impress on the Minister the urgency of improving access to NHS dentistry, because it is essential that my constituents do not have to travel for miles and worry for months?

Neil O'Brien: We will be setting out further steps shortly, but there are 6.5% more dentists doing work for the NHS than in 2010 and we have started the reforms with more units of dental activity bands and a minimum UDA.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that about one third of the activity that takes place in GP surgeries could be transferred to pharmacies? What is he doing to promote that policy and deal with the British Medical Association’s reluctance to co-operate?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that a number of services that GPs currently offer could be performed by pharmacists, and we are looking at that in the context of the primary care recovery plan. This is also about looking at how we can relieve some of the workload pressure within primary care, and that is why we have recruited 25,000 additional staff to support GPs. It is also why we have over 2,000 more doctors in primary care.

Ian Byrne: Some 30% of disabled people, including many of my constituents, are having to cut back on using essential medical equipment at home due to rising energy bills. Some 70,000 people have signed the charity Sense’s petition calling for long-term ongoing support for disabled people and their families. Will the Secretary of State deliver that support as a matter of urgency?

Neil O'Brien: That is exactly why we are spending £55 billion this winter to help households and businesses with their energy bills. That is one of the largest support packages in Europe.

Selaine Saxby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that community-based drop-in mental health services such as the Link centres in North Devon are vital to remote rural communities? Will he urge Devon County Council not only to continue those services but to improve and extend the model?

Steve Barclay: It is for schemes such as those that my hon. Friend highlights that we are investing a further £2.3 billion a year in mental health services, and that in turn is facilitating an extra 2 million patients accessing NHS-funded mental health support.

Daisy Cooper: More than £300 million of the NHS dentistry budget is set to be clawed back by NHS England at the end of this month. That is not because of a lack of demand; it is because the Government’s NHS dental contract is broken and dentists are walking away from NHS work. Will the Government ringfence these funds, rolled over to next year, so that people who desperately need dental treatment can get those appointments?

Neil O'Brien: That is exactly why we will continue to reform the contract as the hon. Lady suggests, and it is why we have started allowing dentists to do 110% of their UDAs, but she is right and we will go further.

Peter Gibson: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my co-chairing of the all-party parliamentary group for hospice and end of life care. Now that integrated care boards have a duty to commission palliative care, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to assess delivery? Will he join me in calling for the North East and North Cumbria ICB to listen to the hospices in the Tees Valley, which would save our hospices and save the NHS money?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the extremely important work of hospices and to the fact that commissioning decisions are devolved to the integrated care boards so that they can target funding in the way that best serves local communities. He is quite right to lobby on their behalf and I am sure that his relevant ICB will take note  of that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the statement on the Illegal Migration Bill, I wish to make a brief statement.
I am aware that there are a number of cases before the courts that relate to the subject matter of the Bill. Given the national importance of the issues to be discussed, I am prepared to exercise a waiver and allow brief references to those cases. However, I would ask Members to exercise caution and not to refer in detail to issues that are being considered by the courts.

Illegal Migration Bill

Suella Braverman: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill.
Two months ago, the Prime Minister made a promise to the British people that anyone entering this country illegally will be detained and swiftly removed—no half measures. The Illegal Migration Bill will fulfil that promise. It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people.
The United Kingdom must always support the world’s most vulnerable. Since 2015 we have given sanctuary to nearly half a million people, including 150,000 people from Hong Kong, 160,000 people from Ukraine and 25,000 Afghans fleeing the Taliban. Indeed, decades ago, my parents found security and opportunity in this country, for which my family are eternally grateful.
Crucially, these decisions are supported by the British people precisely because they are decisions made by the British people and their elected representatives, not by the people smugglers and other criminals who break into Britain on a daily basis. For a Government not to respond to the waves of illegal migrants breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the people we were elected to serve.
The small boats problem is part of a larger global migration crisis. In the coming years, developed countries will face unprecedented pressure from ever greater numbers of people leaving the developing world for places such as the United Kingdom. Unless we act today, the problem will be worse tomorrow, and the problem is already unsustainable.
People are dying in the channel. The volume of illegal arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. The backlog has ballooned to over 160,000. The asylum system now costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the United Kingdom by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022 alone. All travelled through multiple safe countries in which they could and should have claimed asylum. Many came from safe countries, such as Albania, and almost all passed through France. The vast majority—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of 40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for passage.
Upon arrival, most are accommodated in hotels across the country, costing the British taxpayer around £6 million a day. The risk remains that these individuals just disappear. And when we try to remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to prevent removal. The need for reform is obvious and urgent.
This Government have not sat on their hands. Since this Prime Minister took office, recognising the necessity of joint solutions with France, we have signed a new deal that provides more technology and embeds British officers with French patrols. I hope Friday’s Anglo-French summit will further deepen that co-operation.
We have created a new small boats operational command, with more than 700 new staff; doubled National Crime Agency funding to tackle smuggling gangs; increased enforcement raids by 50%; signed a deal with Albania, which has already enabled the return of hundreds of  illegal arrivals; and are procuring accommodation, including on military land, to end the farce of accommodating migrants in hotels.
But let us be honest: it is still not enough. In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose. So to anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let us be honest: there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be clear: they are coming here. We have seen a 500% increase in small boat crossings in two years. This is the crucial point of this Bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed—back to your country if it is safe, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
That is precisely what this Bill will do. That is how we will stop the boats. This Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed. It puts a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm in the country we are removing them to—that is an exceedingly high bar—will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely, after removal.
When our Modern Slavery Act 2015 passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider. Modern slavery laws are being abused to block removals. That is why we granted more than 50% of asylum requests from citizens of a safe European country and NATO ally, Albania. That is why this Bill disqualifies illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules to prevent removal.
I will not address the Bill’s full legal complexities today. [Interruption.] Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been and continue to be involved in its development. But I must say this: rule 39 and the process that enabled the Strasbourg Court to block, at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed. Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process, conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions. That is why we have initiated discussions in Strasbourg to ensure that its blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard, one that prevents abuse of rule 39 to thwart removal; and it is why the Bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance with such orders.
Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position. Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Of course, the UK will always seek to uphold international law, and I am confident that this Bill is compatible with international law. When we have stopped the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system, considering local authority capacity for housing, public services and support.
The British people are famously a fair and patient people. But their sense of fair play has been tested beyond its limits as they have seen the country taken for a ride. Their patience has run out. The law-abiding patriotic majority have said, “Enough is enough.” This cannot and will not continue. Their Government—this Government—must act decisively, must act with determination, must act with compassion, and must act with proportion. Make no mistake: this Conservative Government—this Conservative Prime Minister—will act now to stop the boats. I commend the statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: A record 45,000 people crossed the channel on dangerous small boats last year, up from just 280 four years ago. In that short time, the Government have allowed criminal gangs to take hold along the channel and along our border. At the same time, convictions of people smugglers have halved; Home Office asylum decisions have collapsed, down 40%; the backlog and costly, inappropriate hotel use have soared; removals of unsuccessful asylum seekers are down 80% on the last Labour Government; and legal family reunion visas for refugees are down 40%. That is deeply damaging chaos, and there is no point in Ministers trying to blame anyone else for it. They have been in power for 13 years. The asylum system is broken, and they broke it.
We need serious action to stop dangerous boat crossings, which are putting lives at risk and undermining border security. That is why Labour has put forward plans for a cross-border police unit, for fast-track decisions and returns to clear the backlog and end hotel use, and for a new agreement with France and other countries. Instead, today’s statement is groundhog day. The Home Secretary has said:
“Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe third country.”
[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Only that was not this Home Secretary: it was the last one. And that was not about this Bill: it was about the last one, passed only a year ago and which did not work. As part of last year’s Bill, the Home Office considered 18,000 people as inadmissible for the asylum system because they had travelled through safe third countries, but because it had no return agreements in place, just 21 of them were returned. That is 0.1%. The other 99.9% just carried on, often in hotels, at an extra cost of £500 million, and it did not deter anyone. Even more boats arrived.
What is different this time? The Government still do not have any return agreements in place. The Home Secretary has admitted that Rwanda is “failing”, and even if it gets going it will take only a few hundred people. What will happen to the other 99% under the Bill? She says that she will detain them all, perhaps for 28 days. Can she tell us how many detention centres the Government will need in total and how much they will cost? Even if she does that, what will happen when people leave 28-day detention? Will she make people destitute, so that they just wander the streets in total chaos? They will include torture victims, Afghan interpreters and families with children. Or will she put them into indefinite taxpayer-funded accommodation? Never returned anywhere because the Government do not have agreements  with Europe in place, never given sanctuary, never having their case resolved—just forever in asylum accommodation and hotels. She may not call it the asylum system, but thousands of people are still going to be in it.
What will the Bill mean for the promises we made to the Afghan interpreters who served our country but who were too late to make the last flight out of Kabul as the tyranny was closing in upon them? The Government told them to flee and find another way here, and they told us to tell people that as well. But the resettlement scheme is not helping them and, if they finally arrive in this country this afternoon, perhaps by travelling through Ireland to get here, they will only ever be illegal in the eyes of a Government who relied on the sacrifices they made for us.
If the Government were serious, they would be working internationally to get a proper new agreement in place with France and Europe, including return agreements, properly controlled and managed legal routes such as family reunion, and reform of resettlement. Instead, this Bill makes that harder, unilaterally choosing to decide no asylum cases at all, but expecting every other country to carry on.
If the Government were serious, they would be working with Labour on our plan for a major new cross-border policing unit to go after the criminal gangs. Instead, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said yesterday that we should not go after the gangs because they have existed for “thousands of years”. That is the disgraceful Tory attitude that has let the gangs off of the hook and let them take hold. One smuggler told Sky News yesterday that three quarters of the smugglers live in Britain, but barely any of them are being prosecuted and the Government still have not found the hundreds of children missing from asylum hotels who have been picked up by criminal gangs.
The Government could be setting out a serious plan today. We would work with them on it, and so would everyone across the country. Instead, it is just more chaos. The Government say “no ifs, no buts”, but we all know that they will spend the next year if-ing and but-ing and looking for someone else to blame when it all goes wrong. Enough is enough. We cannot afford any more of this—slogans and not solutions, government by gimmick, ramping up the rhetoric on refugees and picking fights simply to have someone else to blame when things go wrong. This Bill is not a solution. It is a con that risks making the chaos worse. Britain deserves better than this chaos. Britain is better than this.

Suella Braverman: I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks, but—forgive me—after five minutes of hysteria, histrionics and criticism, I am still not clear: I have no idea what Labour’s plan is. I will assume that the shadow Home Secretary is still committed to scrapping our Rwanda partnership, as she said last year, and I will assume that the Leader of the Opposition still wants to close immigration removal centres, as he promised during his leadership campaign. The shadow Home Secretary talks about safe and legal routes; I wonder what number Labour would cap that at. Would it be 500,000? A million? Five million? She should be honest with the House and with the British people: what she really means is unlimited safe and legal routes—open borders by the back door.
The right hon. Lady says get serious, so let us look at the facts. The British people want to stop the boats. It is one of the five promises the Prime Minister made to the British people, but stopping the boats did not even feature in the Leader of the Opposition’s five big missions. Is it because he does not care or because he does not know what to do? We all know why, and I think the British people know why: it is because, deep down, the Leader of the Opposition does not want to stop the boats and he thinks it is bigoted to say we have got too much illegal migration abusing our system. It is because Labour MPs would prefer to write letters stopping the removal of foreign national offenders. It is because the Labour party would prefer to vote against our measures to penalise foreign national offenders and to streamline our asylum system.
Those are the facts. Labour is against deterring people who would come here illegally, against detaining people who come here illegally and against deporting people who are here illegally. That means that Labour is for this situation getting worse and worse. Perhaps that is fine for the Leader of the Opposition and most of those on the Labour Front Bench, but it is not their schools, their GPs or their public services, housing and hotels filling up with illegal migrants.
Perhaps that is why, even before seeing the Bill and engaging on the substance, Labour has already said it will not support its passage through Parliament. Is the Leader of the Opposition committing that the Labour Lords will block it? The British people want to stop the boats. The Conservative Government have a plan to stop the boats. This Prime Minister will stop the boats. If the people want closed minds and open borders, they can rely on Labour.

Tim Loughton: Never have I heard such fabricated rage against genuine attempts to come up with practical solutions for this problem, from a Labour party that has consistently been a policy vacuum on any practical solutions at all. I support this Bill, particularly the provisions for sustainable safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers.
My specific question for the Home Secretary is this. When the Home Affairs Committee visited Calais recently we were told that, when the Rwanda scheme was announced, there was a big upsurge in migrants in France approaching authorities asking about staying in France, because there was a deterrent factor. That has not happened because the Rwanda scheme has not got off the ground. When she sees her counterparts in France on Friday, can we suggest that the French might like to join us in a joint Rwanda-type scheme, since they face the same problems? Can they do more? We have safe and legal routes to stop people getting in the boats: to arrest them and stop this illegal trade at source on their side of the channel.

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Deterrence is the key theme running through these measures. We want to send the message loudly and clearly to people smugglers and people thinking about crossing the channel: do not do it. Do not hand over your life savings, do not get in to that flimsy dinghy and do not risk your life, because you will not be entitled to a life in the UK.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stuart McDonald: The SNP stands proudly behind the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. We believe that all who seek asylum and refugee status deserve a fair hearing and we are 100% behind the clear statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.
Despite the dreary dog-whistle rhetoric, the Home Secretary’s Bill will not lay a solitary finger on people smugglers or people traffickers, but it will cause serious and devastating harm to those who have already endured incredible suffering. Afghans let down by the Government’s utterly failed relocation schemes will be locked up and offshored. People who have fled persecution in Syria, Eritrea or Iran will remain blocked from the asylum system. The policies that have seen hundreds of children go missing from hotels will be enshrined in her Bill. The world-leading modern slavery legislation piloted through by one of her predecessors is about to be ripped to pieces without a single shred of justification. That is what this appalling Bill looks set to deliver, and that is why we will oppose it every step of the way.
If every country followed the Home Secretary’s example, the whole system of refugee protection around the world would fall to pieces. It is not just that system that will be trashed by this Bill, however, but the UK’s reputation as a place of sanctuary. She spoke about an overwhelmed asylum system, but the only thing that has overwhelmed the asylum system is the Conservative party’s incompetence and mismanagement. One of her own ministerial colleagues described the Rwanda plan as
“ugly, likely to be counterproductive and of dubious legality”,
and that beautifully encapsulates what is in this Bill.
I have two questions for the Home Secretary. First, what happens if an Afghan arrival cannot be removed to Afghanistan, France, Rwanda or anywhere else? Will he or she eventually be admitted to the asylum system? If so, after how long? Secondly, when the Prime Minister meets President Macron, will he be telling him that the UK is prepared to leave the European convention on human rights?

Suella Braverman: A lot of passion and fury and fire—I only wish the Scottish Government would bring so much passion to their approach to accommodating asylum seekers, when Scotland currently takes one of the lowest numbers of asylum seekers in our United Kingdom. Our measures set out a comprehensive and coherent plan, combining fairness and compassion.

Lee Anderson: Now then. When asked by a reporter if foreign rapists and murderers should be deported to the country they came from, the lawyer of the Opposition replied that it depends. Well, I say get rid. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will indeed get rid of foreign rapists and murderers?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is right to point out the shameless position that the Labour party has adopted. We have passed measures to make it easier to remove foreign national rapists, drug dealers and murderers. What does the Labour party do? It writes letters to stop us.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Diana R. Johnson: In the Home Affairs Committee report on channel crossings, which was published last summer, we found that small boats have not overwhelmed the asylum system as the Home Secretary is claiming. The backlog has been allowed to grow since 2013, and is now at over 160,000. We said in that report:
“Poor resourcing, by successive governments, of staff and technology in the Asylum Operations function in the Home Office, has been a significant factor in this collapse.”
Our report also found that the Government should deal with the backlog, expand safe and legal routes and negotiate a returns policy with the EU. Can the Home Secretary tell the House what progress has been made on expanding safe and legal routes and on a returns policy with the EU?

Suella Braverman: I think it is clear for everyone to see that our asylum system has been overwhelmed by unprecedented numbers of people arriving here and by the very high numbers being processed currently. We have made good progress, both with the EU and with our counterparts in France, and that is why I am very much looking forward to the Anglo-French summit this Friday, which our Prime Minister will be leading with the French President, to discuss this issue in more detail.

Simon Fell: The balance of creating a strong enough deterrent to cripple the gangs and render the routes unviable, and being fair, is absolutely key, so I appreciate the needle that the Home Secretary is trying to thread and the effort that she has put into this solution. Could she confirm that, under this plan, as the deterrent measures kick in and the asylum backlog is worn down, safe and legal routes will reopen from countries outside Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine, and could she give an estimate of when they will reopen?

Suella Braverman: We have several schemes open to people from all nationalities to come here via safe and legal routes. We will, thanks to the Bill, have a more comprehensive discussion and a decision endorsed by Parliament—one that has more legitimacy in how we go forward on allowing safe and legal routes into this country.

Diane Abbott: As a child of migrants, can I tell the Home Secretary how much I deplore her seeking to smear migrants as a whole as criminals and rapists? Can I also assure the House that I will never vote for legislation that would have led to my parents being detained and dumped in Rwanda?
The Home Secretary talks about detention and deportation. Where is she going to detain these people? There is not the capacity to detain these numbers of people. In terms of deportation, the only arrangement we have is with Rwanda, which has told us that it can take only 200 people. Her tone, her legislation and her proposed actions are deplorable and unworkable. Even at this late stage, will she reconsider?

Suella Braverman: With respect to the right hon. Lady, it is wrong, naive and inflammatory to conflate people who come here legitimately, abide by our laws and come here on a legal basis with those who come here illegally, break our laws and put themselves and others at risk. I urge her to choose her words carefully.

Amanda Milling: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the measures that she has set out. What would be her key message to my constituents, who are angry about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers in and around Cannock Chase?

Suella Braverman: The message I would send to my right hon. Friend’s constituents is that we need to stop the boats coming here in the first place. Once we succeed with that objective, through the measures in the Bill, we will be able to stop them being accommodated in hotels.

Paula Barker: The Rwandan Government have said that they are able to take only 200 people. Can the Home Secretary tell the House what will happen to the 44,800 others who are waiting in the system? Does she believe that the £120 million that has gone to Rwanda is value for money? Will she confirm that an additional £12,000 per refugee will be added to the Rwanda bill for processing costs?

Suella Braverman: I am incredibly proud of what the Conservative Government achieved in securing the agreement—the ground-breaking, world-beating agreement—with our friends and allies in Rwanda. I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for leading that work. Our scheme with Rwanda was upheld by the High Court at the end of last year. That is a big step forward in our litigation, and we look forward to working with our friends in Rwanda to deliver the agreement.

Edward Leigh: Although it has been all over the press this morning, West Lindsey District Council has still not been officially informed that the Home Office is planning to place migrants at former Royal Air Force Scampton. We announced just yesterday, after two years of work, a £300 million scheme to have the best ever handover of a Ministry of Defence base—the Home of the Dambusters: business, tourism and heritage. Will the Home Secretary assure me that if she overrides our objections and places migrants there, she will work closely with me and the council to ensure that that is strictly temporary and in no way upsets the best deal that has ever come to north Lincolnshire?

Suella Braverman: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is working intensively to secure bespoke, appropriate and—importantly—sustainable asylum accommodation around a range of locations within the United Kingdom. We are working with local authorities and Members of Parliament. We want to make the right decision for communities, and that is why all dialogue is welcome.

Wendy Chamberlain: Torpiki Amrakhil, an Afghan journalist and former announcer on Radio Afghanistan and on the radio station of the United Nations assistance mission in Afghanistan, drowned  in Italian waters on the way to Europe. Given the brutality of the Taliban regime and precarious security situation in neighbouring third countries, it is shocking that there is no specific safe route for at-risk Afghan women and girls. We have failed the people of Afghanistan at every stage, and the UK is an outlier in that regard. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to create a specific safe route or to at least ensure that existing promises are kept?

Suella Braverman: Unspeakable tragedy is occurring in the channel and through all maritime routes around the world because of the global migration crisis. That is why it is absolutely essential that the UK takes a robust but compassionate approach. That is at core a humanitarian package of measures that sends the message to people: “Do not come here illegally.”

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement. Once we strip away the rhetoric, of course, the key to all this is how we save the lives of the people who are dying while trying to get across the channel and are abused by the traffickers. I listened very carefully to her statement, and I understand all the other features—although we may have a debate about the numbers that she quotes on modern-day slavery problems—but could she expand a little on the issue that stopped the migrants being taken to Rwanda last time, which was the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights? I did not really hear anything in the statement to suggest that anything has changed on that matter.

Suella Braverman: My right hon. Friend is right to identify the difficulties that we had in effecting flights to Rwanda in the summer of last year. As I mentioned, the Strasbourg court issued a rule 39 order pursuant to an opaque process at the last minute without UK representation or right of challenge. We will introduce some detail in the Bill to address that scenario and inject some conditions upon which we will deliver the measures in rule 39.

Lyn Brown: Empty slogans, chaos and broken promises are all we have heard from the Home Secretary today. Return of failed asylum seekers has collapsed by 80% since Labour left office in 2010. Is that not an extraordinary level of incompetence by this Government?

Suella Braverman: What I find to be irresponsible and, frankly, incompetent is the Labour party voting against our measures to remove foreign national offenders, to streamline our asylum system and to take a firm line on illegal migration.

Darren Henry: I broadly welcome the announcement today and measures being put in place to prevent dangerous crossings of the channel, but how precisely will they affect the migrants who are living in hotels near my inland midlands constituency and move them to more appropriate accommodation, perhaps on military land, as the Home Secretary mentioned?

Suella Braverman: Our 10-point plan announced in December deals with the issue of asylum accommodation. It is unacceptable that over 40,000 people are being accommodated in hotels all over the country, at a cost of £6 million a day. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is therefore working intensively with other Departments and local authorities throughout the country to identify and procure sustainable and appropriate asylum accommodation.

Joanna Cherry: The Home Secretary has often said that she would be quite happy if the United Kingdom left the European convention on human rights, and when the Justice Secretary gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last year, he said that the Government were not ruling out leaving the convention. The Home Secretary said in her statement that she cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility with the ECHR under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which comes as no surprise to most of us. Is the plan behind the Bill simply this: the legislation will go through in the certain knowledge that the domestic courts of the United Kingdom will find that it is incompatible with international law and the ECHR; and then the Tories will fight the next general election on a promise to take the United Kingdom out of the European convention on human rights? That is the whole point of this, is it not?

Suella Braverman: I refer the hon. and learned Lady to her comments on the Rwanda partnership about a year ago. Many people here denounced it as unlawful, cruel and illegitimate, yet not very long go we had an exhaustive and authoritative judgment from the High Court saying the exact opposite—that it is compliant with human rights, compliant with the refugee convention, and lawful.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The House will remember that in October 2019, 39 illegal migrants were found to have perished in the back of a lorry in my constituency. Following that incident, Essex police and their counterparts in Belgium tracked down and prosecuted a number of people in connection with those crimes. Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the dialogue with France this week, lessons will be learned from that case, and that tracking down the traffickers is very much a part of how we tackle this problem?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to alight on the issue of the criminal gangs and people smugglers, and the importance of the pan-European criminal work that is ongoing to break their business model. We have had about 500 arrests and closed down 50 or so gangs, and work continues intensively with our French counterparts to stop this criminal and evil activity.

Hilary Benn: The Home Secretary told the House earlier that she is confident that these proposals are compatible with the UK’s international obligations. Does that extend to articles 31, 32 and 33 of the 1951 refugee convention?

Suella Braverman: The Bill introduces measures that we consider to be compliant with all our international obligations—in fact, we are certain.

Bill Cash: The Bill is very much in the right direction. As my right hon. and learned Friend has just indicated, she needs to consider disapplication of parts of the Human Rights Act that would otherwise enable judges to water down the legislation and the Government’s proper objectives. If we do not deal with Strasbourg judgments and orders, these new proposals cannot work. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will expect amendments to be tabled in Committee. Will she discuss these with us, including aspects of the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention?

Suella Braverman: As we embark on the process of parliamentary scrutiny, my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and I will engage fully with all Members of Parliament to hear their concerns and ideas about the Bill. I refer my hon. Friend to clause 1 and the specific disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which is an interpretive clause; that will help in this regard.

John Martin McDonnell: I have nearly 2,000 people, I think, who have exercised their legal right to claim asylum living in hotels in my constituency—probably more than any other Member of Parliament. I welcome them into my constituency. I have toured the hotels, met many of them and held advice sessions. They come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan-Iraq, Iran and Eritrea, and many come from Syria. Some of have shown me their wounds from torture; many are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They have been in the hotels for 12 to 18 months.
I am amazed by the range of skills and qualifications these people have. They just want employment. They want to be able to contribute. They want a job and to contribute to our society and our economy, but they are trapped in this system because of the lack of processing. I take up their cases and get sheets of the same three or four-sentence responses, and the cases move no further. Could the Home Secretary at least provide the House with a monthly report on how the processing of their cases is proceeding?
May I say one final thing, Mr Speaker? Will the Home Secretary please tone down her inflammatory language? It is putting these people and those who represent them at risk.

Suella Braverman: We are making good progress in bearing down on the legacy backlog in our asylum system. We have increased the number of decision makers and streamlined the decision-making process, and we are increasing productivity. We will continue to bear down on that because it is a big factor in the hotel accommodation issue.

Kevin Foster: This is always one of the toughest issues in government, but we are not the only country facing it. Look at the transformation Greece has effected of the situation in the Aegean over the past six or seven years. Although the Bill will change many of the legal aspects, ultimately it is about how we make the system work in practice. What reassurance does my right hon. and learned Friend have that we will be able to create the relevant amount of detention capacity and the necessary amount of removal  capacity without affecting other vital immigration and removal work, such as the removal of foreign national offenders?

Suella Braverman: May I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend? As an excellent Home Office Minister, he shepherded through many of the measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that are now being implemented to combat this challenge. We are building on the achievements of that legislation.
We will roll out a programme of increasing immigration detention capacity, and we are working intensively on that now.

Hywel Williams: Safaa, a Syrian refugee, escaped from Daesh to save her life. She thinks the Government’s plans will make others in her situation feel suicidal. She told me:
“With the UK Government policy, when you arrive, the dream is broken, it is gone. Still, my family have settled in Wales and contribute to society.”
I want to say to Safaa that she is welcome and that we want to her to stay as long as is necessary. What does the Home Secretary have to say to Safaa?

Suella Braverman: I am proud of our track record of welcoming people through humanitarian routes who are fleeing war, persecution and other conflict, whether from Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong. That is a record of which I am proud.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to dealing with illegal migration. I am a Kent Member of Parliament, and we are at the frontline of illegal immigration. We are repeatedly told by Government that tough measures will be taken, yet the numbers have gone up. My constituents want tough, decisive action. The Home Secretary says we will be having discussions with our French counterparts. In 2010, we signed the Lancaster House agreement with France on defence and security. How will these new measures address the challenges to ensure that we have tough, decisive action to deal with illegal migration?

Suella Braverman: We struck a new deal with France at the end of last year. That saw an increase in the number of French personnel patrolling the French beaches. It saw a new development, with British Border Force officers being located in France, working side-by-side with French police officers. It has led to greater collaboration and intelligence-sharing, so that we can clamp down on the people-smuggling gangs.

Khalid Mahmood: My grandfather, his brothers and his cousins came to this country in boats, but they came through the British merchant navy and were proud British mariners. They came in, set up in Newcastle and helped the war effort. I am a descendant of them, and this Home Secretary is bringing forward legislation that she knows is not workable. She will not be able to achieve any of this. If we look at the record, she does not have any return agreements. If we look at the policies for what she is going to do with people who are here, she cannot do anything. Is it not the truth that the Bill is purely to do with her political agenda to get votes in red wall seats, but that the  expense of doing so is xenophobia and racism, which is not conducive to the interests of our constituents or the country?

Suella Braverman: It is irresponsible to suggest that someone who wants to control our borders and who says that the numbers are out of control and that we need a firm but compassionate line on migration is racist. That is irresponsible, it is wrong, and it should not be put forward.

Mark Francois: I warmly welcome the principle of the Bill, not least because the whole House knows that the people traffickers are immoral and utterly heartless, but the elephant in the room, as has already been alluded to, is the ECHR. Unless we can somehow face it down, we will remain tied up in legal knots in our own domestic courts and ultimately in Strasbourg. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that when we see the Bill, it will contain specific measures to do that, so that the Bill will achieve its purpose?

Suella Braverman: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the legal complexity of this issue. There will be measures relating to rule 39 orders, and I refer him to the disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act. That sends a message to the judiciary about how Parliament intends the Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, to be interpreted in the courts.

Stella Creasy: My constituent risked his life working for the British forces in Afghanistan. He and his family were invited to the Baron hotel, but because of an explosion, they could not make it, and his family now live in fear in the region. We have been told that because he is a British citizen, his children are not eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. When it comes to splitting up families in that way, Russian war protesters, Iranian democracy protesters or the Afghan judges we have heard about, this Government are failing to provide any safe or legal routes. Is that not what is pushing people into boats and into the arms of the smugglers?

Suella Braverman: The hon. Lady is wrong. We have welcomed almost 500,000 people to the UK who are fleeing persecution, fleeing conflict and fleeing war, from Afghanistan, Syria, Hong Kong and Ukraine. She should acknowledge that great achievement that this country has secured.

Richard Drax: I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who proved that deterrence works—of course deterrence works. I commend the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for tackling this difficult issue. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, particularly when it comes to economic migrants, there is plenty of room for the wealthy west to do more in their countries to prevent them from coming here in the first place?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is right, as usual. This is where those on the left just go wrong. They naively believe that everyone on a boat is always fleeing persecution, war and conflict. The reality is that many  of these people are young, fit and healthy men. Many have paid thousands of pounds to come here and many of them are economic migrants, abusing our asylum laws and our generosity.

Tommy Sheppard: This is a most foul and shameful policy, which depends on dehumanising and criminalising some of the most vulnerable people on this earth, and it is most certainly going to be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. The European Court of Human Rights is overseen by the Council of Europe, and if this Government are determined to break the European convention on human rights, I am certain it will lead to a challenge of the credentials of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe. Will the Government confirm that their policy is to face suspension or exclusion from the Council of Europe in pursuit of this plan?

Suella Braverman: The package of measures I have brought forward represents a humanitarian set of measures that will, above all, deter people from making a dangerous and sometimes fatal journey in the wild hope that it will lead to a better life in the UK. People must not take the journey, they must not risk their lives and they must not come here illegally.

Jane Stevenson: I welcome the Home Secretary’s strong statement today, which many of my constituents will fully support. It is a perverse system that while the small boat crossings continue, someone’s ability to claim asylum is reliant on their physical fitness or ability to pay. I thank her for being absolutely clear that many tens of millions more people would want to and are entitled to claim asylum than we could ever hope to welcome. In contrast to the calls for open borders from those on the Opposition Benches, we have to be pragmatic and fair. Does she also agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, that the western world has to unite and deal with poverty in developing nations? Until developing nations are assisted to develop with education, business and trade links, we will see an acceleration of this problem.

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend talks about pragmatism and fairness, and ultimately we are seeing a global migration crisis in which more than 100 million people will be displaced throughout the world. Many of them will want to come to the United Kingdom. The simple truth is that we will not be able to take in everyone who wants to come here, and we therefore need to develop a system that is fair, compassionate and pragmatic.

Ruth Cadbury: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I have hundreds of asylum seekers living in hotels in my constituency, and I have met many of them. They have fled war and terror. They want to work and their children are in school. They are living in shocking conditions, while murky layers of contractors and subcontractors are skimming off significant profits. Why is there nothing in the Bill to address the collapse of immigration decision-making that leaves these people in limbo?

Suella Braverman: Our 10-point plan has many elements. We need to introduce legislation to stop the boats coming in the first place. We then need to bear down on our asylum backlog, so that the number of people accommodated in hotels and in limbo is dramatically reduced. That is the fair thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do.

Peter Bone: People coming across in small boats are smuggled. They spend thousands of pounds to get here. People who are trafficked come here without paying any money or are duped and forced into exploitation. However, many coming across in small boats claim exemption under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Has the Home Secretary taken that into account? I am emphatic that this abuse is damaging the genuine victims of human trafficking.

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It used to take 100 days to consider a modern slavery claim. It now takes more than 500 days, because there has been a massive influx of people claiming to be victims of modern slavery, which impedes our ability to help genuine victims of modern slavery, which is not good for anyone.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Home Secretary recognise that it is positively Orwellian, as well as morally repugnant, to seek to ban people from seeking asylum unless they use safe and legal routes, as those routes barely exist and, where they do exist, they do not function? One of the very few legal routes is the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3, which is a total shambles. As of January this year, according to the House of Commons Library, not one person has arrived in the UK via that pathway. Instead of this shameful, divisive, dog-whistle legislation, will she urgently open and make work safe and legal routes as the only way to stop the small boats?

Suella Braverman: The hon. Lady’s faux outrage is commendable, but the reality is that that is not borne out by the facts. We have accepted nearly 500,000 people through safe and legal routes for humanitarian reasons. That is a track record of which I am proud—I wish she would be, too.

Simon Clarke: We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members setting out precisely what they think of my constituents, who believe that we need to control illegal immigration and that the issue of small boats in the channel is a top priority that needs to be brought under control, precisely because it demonstrates that the Government are listening to their priorities and are making sure that this country can control its borders. That being the case, we all hope that the legislation will succeed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise that, if it is frustrated by the European convention on human rights, we will commit to leave the convention because, in the end, leave it we must if the legislation is stalled?

Suella Braverman: As we saw last year, the fact that the Strasbourg Court issued a rule 39 order pursuant to an opaque process in which the UK was not represented was deeply regrettable. We are addressing that issue in  the Bill to avoid that scenario playing out again. In our view, the Bill complies with our international obligations and we must take these measures promptly.

Nia Griffith: The Home Secretary has just said that, when she stops the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. That is really putting the cart before the horse. She knows perfectly well that the legal routes are barely there and are failing, so will she consider immediately piloting more and better safe and legal routes from countries such as Afghanistan, where people’s lives are in constant danger?

Suella Braverman: Forgive me, but that question displays the Labour party’s naivety and lack of realism. It is not right to say that everyone coming here is doing so for genuine asylum or humanitarian reasons, which is why we need to take a measured, compassionate and pragmatic approach.

Dr Caroline Johnson: My constituents are concerned about the number of boats coming across the channel, and they and I welcome the Government’s measures to resolve the problem. The Rwanda scheme remains unenacted and is mired in court action. Some of my constituents are wondering why the democratic will of the Parliament that they have elected is taking so long to be realised. How will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Bill that she has announced today will not face the same fate?

Suella Braverman: The Rwanda partnership has been tested rigorously in the High Court, which is why I welcome the judgment of senior judges, who upheld the partnership as being lawful and compliant with human rights laws and the refugee convention. It is a big step forward in vindicating the decision on the partnership that we struck with our friends in Rwanda, and we will wait for the outcome of further litigation.

Dan Jarvis: Between October and December last year, one in three people making the journey came from Afghanistan. The Government say that Afghans should use safe and legal routes to get here, but by their own figures only one Afghan was relocated in the month of December through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. Those left behind include people who sacrificed everything in support of the UK’s mission in Afghanistan. Many of them have been brutally murdered by the Taliban and many more will undoubtedly be killed. Can the Home Secretary say that she will honour the commitments made to those who served alongside us in Afghanistan and, if she will honour those commitments, how will she ensure that they receive safe passage?

Suella Braverman: As I have mentioned quite a few times, but it bears repetition, we have been proud to welcome 20,000 people from Afghanistan who have fled the troubles and the Taliban. We have a family reunification scheme to enable family members to join their family here. That is a record of which we should be proud and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to support it.

Andrew Bridgen: Can the Home Secretary reconfirm that the Bill will stop illegal entry being a route to our asylum system,  and what effect does she think that it will have on the number of people willing to pay evil people traffickers to cross the channel?

Suella Braverman: Deterrence is a core aim of these measures. We need to send the message that, if someone comes here illegally on a boat, paying a people smuggler, they will not have an entitlement to life in the UK. That is why I urge everyone here to get behind the Bill.

Claire Hanna: Like many who are genuinely interested in supporting those who want to solve these problems, I have concerns about this approach, both in principle and in practice. The issues in communities that the Government uses as a straw man are, in fact, the result of a decade of systematic underfunding and neglect in health, housing and education. Instead of scapegoating the vulnerable, encouraging conspiracy and aggression, when will the Home Secretary get a grip on the chaos in her Department, whose processing rates have collapsed, along with conviction rates for people smugglers? When will she stop scapegoating and start solving?

Suella Braverman: Far from scapegoating the vulnerable, this is about protecting the vulnerable. This is about empowering our authorities properly to support genuine victims of modern slavery. This is about enabling a swifter resolution of genuine asylum claims. This is about enabling greater, safer and legal routes. This is not scapegoating—this is about protection.

Bill Wiggin: If moving people to Hereford is the solution, may I welcome everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said? We British people have rights as well, so can she put her shoulder to the wheel for my constituents, too?

Suella Braverman: This is about our humanitarian approach, but it is also about fairness. My hon. Friend is right—the British people’s famous sense of fair play and generosity has been tested beyond limit, which is why it is necessary to go further than we have gone before and make sure that we have a robust scheme in place that actually stops the boats.

Karen Buck: The Home Secretary must have been shocked to discover that she and her party have been in charge of the Home Office for the past 13 years, during which time the backlog of asylum claims has done nothing but mushroom. The number of children who have been waiting more than a year for their asylum application to be considered has risen twelvefold. Rapid decision making is part of the effective deterrence which she claims to want. Why was this allowed to happen, when will she get a grip and why does passing the same piece of legislation yet again make a difference?

Suella Braverman: If we go down the path of comparing backlogs, the Labour party will be found wanting. The backlog with which we are dealing bears no comparison whatsoever with what the Labour party left us with in 2010.

James Daly: I warmly welcome the legislation. Will the Home Secretary confirm that running through it is the central theme that the only route to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal route, with an annual cap on the number of refugees? The annual cap is the crucial point. This is democratic accountability. Migration must be based on the country’s capacity and capability to house and support people. We cannot have open borders, whatever the other side pontificates. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend when we will vote on the migration cap? I welcome her statement, as it is exactly what my voters want—well done to the Home Secretary.

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend speaks a lot of sense. The British people did not vote for 40,000 people to arrive here on small boats. They did not vote for our immigration laws to be broken. They voted for representatives to serve in this place to speak up for them. That is why I urge every Member of this House to get behind this Bill and stop the boats.

Ronnie Cowan: According to the statistics quoted by the Home Secretary last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider. Among those were the asylum seekers staying in a hotel in my constituency. I have engaged with them, along with my MSP colleague Stuart McMillan, on an ongoing basis since they arrived. The Home Office has not. It has not talked to those guys; it has not stopped the process. Would the Home Secretary consider expanding the shortage occupation list to allow them to work? Those young men want to contribute to the society in which they have been welcomed.

Suella Braverman: Aside from humanitarian routes into this country, we also have an extensive points-based system, which we developed post Brexit. Thanks to our freedom on migration, we have issued a record number of work and study visas in the last year alone. People who want to come here for legitimate reasons should go through our points-based system.

Damian Collins: My constituents on the south Kent coast have seen with their own eyes the rapid increase in small boat crossings in the past few years. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our priority must be to stop these dangerous journeys, and that the most effective way to do that is to demonstrate that they cannot be a shortcut into the asylum system and will not lead to permanent residency in the UK?

Suella Braverman: Getting into a flimsy dinghy wearing a thin polystyrene excuse for a life jacket, paying thousands of pounds, breaking our laws and putting one’s life at risk is not the way to come to the United Kingdom. That is what this Bill is all about.

Barry Gardiner: The Home Secretary will be aware that the bulk of the 500,000 people she says have come through safe and legal routes are from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Regarding Afghanistan, she will also know that, in the whole of the last year, since the new safe route was put in place, only 22 individuals from Afghanistan have been accepted through that route. Is it any surprise to the Home Secretary, then,  that 8,500 Afghans made a small boat crossing to the UK last year? Having rendered meaningless any safe and legal route from Afghanistan, where does the Home Secretary believe she derives the moral authority to criminalise those 8,500 people simply because of their mode of travel?

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is really important, if we are going to get everybody in, that the questions are very short, as the answers have been. It is really important for colleagues to remember that.

Suella Braverman: Regarding Operation Pitting, we have received 20,000 people from Afghanistan—fleeing the Taliban, fleeing conflict and fleeing persecution. I am very proud of Britain’s track record. That is one among many safe routes through which people have come to the UK.

Nicholas Fletcher: The people of Doncaster and Don Valley have welcomed people from all around the world, including recently through the Ukraine scheme, but they also now realise that we are full. Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House and to the people of Doncaster whether an illegal immigrant who arrives on our shores would ever be granted leave to remain?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is right. We are at unsustainable levels of people coming here illegally. It is putting unsustainable pressure on our accommodation, our public services and our resources. That cannot continue. That is why we need to adopt a different approach when it comes to dealing with asylum cases.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box last week and committed that the Government
“will remain a member of the ECHR”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 594.]
because leaving it would break the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Does the Home Secretary agree?

Suella Braverman: We are clear that the measures in the Bill comply with our international law obligations. We are pleased to be proceeding with it and I encourage the hon. Lady to back it.

Stephen Metcalfe: I hope the whole House will welcome and support my right hon. and learned Friend’s proposals, because my constituents have rightly been frustrated by our inability thus far to tackle illegal migration and control our borders. This is not about demonising genuine refugees or turning our back on those in need, but about stopping illegal activity and ensuring that our long tradition of offering safe haven to those who are truly persecuted is not undermined by those who abuse our hospitality and break our laws.

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Making progress on stopping illegal migration will enable us to better support genuine victims of modern slavery or human trafficking with asylum. That is what this country is about, and I am very proud of that.

Chris Stephens: The Government will shortly be announcing their sixth immigration Bill since I arrived in the House in 2015, which tells us everything we need to know about their failures on immigration policy. However, I want to ask about the content of the Bill. Will the Home Secretary tell the House that she will not seek to revisit ouster clauses to prevent judicial review and that she will be mindful of the 2019 Supreme Court ruling that the presence of such clauses does not prevent a judicial review challenge based on an error of law?

Suella Braverman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on closer inspection of the Bill, will see what we have put forward. We will dramatically reduce the avenues and options for legal challenge, which are often used to thwart removal. It is important that we do that—within the law—to ensure that our operations can be delivered effectively.

David Jones: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the introduction of this legislation. She has made it clear that she intends to secure that the only route to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal route with an annual cap on the number of refugees. That is the correct and humane approach. Does she agree that those who advocate another approach are doing no favours to the migrants or indeed to their own constituents?

Suella Braverman: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having safe and legal routes, capped and legitimised through a decision by Parliament, is the right way to support people seeking refuge in this country—not perpetuating an evil trade in people smuggling.

Andrew Slaughter: Afghan refugee children who were about to take their GCSEs in schools in my constituency have been forced to move 200 miles from the hotel they have spent the last 18 months in to other hotels. No school places were arranged for them in the places where they were going, and the Home Office initially denied that they had been moved at all. Is that the level of competence the Home Secretary is happy with? Will she look at those cases and at her whole policy on immigration, which is just failing?

Suella Braverman: When we introduced measures to streamline our asylum process and hasten decision making, the Labour party voted against them. Seriously, the hon. Gentleman cannot now complain when there are challenges with accommodating people, because they are waiting for an asylum decision and they are being housed in hotels.

Holly Mumby-Croft: My constituents are rightly proud of this country’s historic record of providing sanctuary to those in need, but they are deeply unhappy about the numbers of small boats crossing and the economic migrants. They are also deeply distressed to see men, women and children losing their lives in the channel at the hands of people traffickers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all she can to ensure that these plans strike the right balance, ending these illegal and dangerous crossings, but also ensuring that we can provide sanctuary to those who arrive here legally?

Suella Braverman: Yes, these measures make it clear that if someone is going to be exploited by people smugglers to embark on a treacherous and illegal journey so that they can come here to make a spurious asylum claim, they will not be able to settle here and will not have a life in the United Kingdom. Safe and legal routes will be available to them.

Zarah Sultana: It is the oldest trick in the book. When poverty is rising and the rich are getting richer, when wages are falling and people are struggling, the powerful say that the problem is not really bosses or Government cuts, but migrants and refugees. That is what is happening when the Home Secretary whips up fear about an invasion on the south coast and announces this pledge to cut up our commitment to the UN refugee convention. She is demonising people who come here by boat while refusing to create new safe and legal routes for refugees. How many refugees will she lock up before she accepts that we need a compassionate approach, not this callous and cruel policy?

Suella Braverman: I refuse to take lectures from a Member of Parliament who wrote a letter to the Home Office to ensure that a foreign national offender, who had been convicted of serious and heinous crimes, was not deported from this country. That person then went on to murder—a shameful stain on the Labour party.

Danny Kruger: I am reassured by what I have heard from the Home Secretary: that the operation of this excellent Bill will not be frustrated by the European convention on human rights. As we have heard, however, Opposition Members will be encouraging their friends in the activist lawyer community to do everything they can to use Labour’s rights framework to obstruct the law. I hope that she will work with us to strengthen the Bill and defend it from that. On safe and legal routes, which we absolutely need, I encourage her to make more use of the community sponsorship scheme, which has been useful for Ukrainians.

Suella Braverman: The community sponsorship scheme is a good scheme that enables the settlement of people who are seeking refuge in this country. My hon. Friend talks about activist lawyers. I will tell hon. Members who the biggest activist lawyer is: he is leading the Labour party.

Kirsty Blackman: This is not being done in our name. We did not vote to leave the ECHR, we did not vote for Brexit, and we did not vote for refugees fleeing unimaginable horrors to be detained and deported to Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary not have a shred of compassion for what people—children and families—are going through? Will she create more safe and legal routes so that people can actually access safety, rather than being stuck rotting in war zones?

Suella Braverman: The hon. Lady talks about what people did or did not vote for. The British people did not vote for 45,000 people to come here illegally or for £6 million to be spent every day on hotel accommodation. The British people did not vote for the abuse of our generosity. The compassionate thing that we need to do is pass this Bill.

Mark Fletcher: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and intent. We have had a policy of housing illegal migrants and asylum seekers in hotels up and down this country, which has caused massive community tensions and put strains on public services. Can she confirm when that will end and how much that will save the British taxpayer?

Suella Braverman: We are spending £3 billion a year on supporting the asylum backlog and £6 million a day on hotel accommodation, which is valuable taxpayers’ money that should not be diverted to those purposes. We need to stop the boats, bear down on the backlog and save the British taxpayer valuable money.

Vicky Foxcroft: My office deals with outstanding asylum cases week in, week out, as I am sure do those of many MPs up and down the country. Despite promises that the situation would improve, we are still waiting an unacceptably long time for updates from the Home Office. Why is there nothing in the Bill to address the fact that 160,000 people are currently awaiting a decision—a 60% increase on the previous year?

Suella Braverman: We are making good progress on bearing down on the asylum backlog. We have increased the number of decision makers, we have improved the levels of productivity, we have streamlined the guidance, and we are making sure that we are processing the claims individually, on a case-by-case basis, more swiftly. That is how we will remove people from hotel accommodation and bear down on the costs.

Simon Baynes: I strongly support the Illegal Migration Bill, which is a major step forward in stopping the small boats. Can my right hon. Friend provide more details on how it will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal?

Suella Braverman: We have made it clear that there will be a duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for a removal, and that removal will be suspended only in the event that the claimant can establish that they face a serious risk of irreversible harm should they be removed. In all other instances, that person will be removed and they can make their claim from the safe country or the country to which they have been removed.

Rachael Maskell: York is England’s only human rights city and we have welcomed asylum seekers. It is a privilege to provide a safe haven for them, but this legislation is a real affront to those values. Can the Home Secretary publish the legal advice on how her legislation is compatible not only with international law but with the European convention on human rights?

Suella Braverman: As a former Attorney General, I know that the Government abide by the Law Officers’ convention, which means that neither the fact nor the content of legal advice is disclosed. That would be a decision for the Attorney General. We are very clear, however, that our Bill complies with international obligations, so we urge all hon. Members to support it.

Luke Evans: I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for listening to me and many people in Hinckley and Bosworth and across the country who want illegal immigration and the boat crossings to stop. Can she tell us practically how long she expects it to take to bring the legislation forward? More importantly, will Border Force have the resources to implement it?

Suella Braverman: We are introducing the Bill today and we hope that the parliamentary authorities will allow us to move swiftly on its progress. We want to start scrutinising and voting on the measures put forward as quickly as possible, because we want to get them on the statute book and operationalised as soon as possible. It is an urgent challenge and we need to move quickly.

Paulette Hamilton: I am the daughter of immigrants. My parents’ generation faced injustice through the mistakes made by the Windrush scheme, which are taking years to unravel. Last year set a record high for small boat crossings, with 46,000 arrivals. Why on earth should our constituents trust the Conservative Government, when under them, small boat crossings are going up rather than coming down?

Suella Braverman: I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned Windrush, because I am proud of our achievements to date to right the wrongs that were committed. More than £60 million has been offered or paid out to the claimants and we are resolving many of the outstanding cases. I have engaged closely with members of the steering group and with Bishop Webley, and I am encouraged by the progress that we are making to resolve the issue.

Richard Graham: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will prevent illegal migrants, especially the 80,000 from EU accession countries, from abusing our modern slavery laws to prevent their return home? On supporting the most vulnerable, will she confirm that she will create more legal migration routes, alongside an annual quota, and encourage the Department for Work and Pensions to do more to provide skills to refugees who have the right to work so that they can contribute to our country in the way that they want to?

Suella Braverman: One of the benefits of the measures in the Bill will be an enhanced ability to support genuine asylum seekers and genuine victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Our ability is severely impeded at the moment, because of the overwhelming number of claims in our system, many of which are illegitimate and spurious. They are clogging up our system so that we are unable to properly support those who genuinely need it.

Martin Docherty: When the people of Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven contact me, they wonder why the Conservative and Unionist party is creating a new Bill of dubious moral and legal standing when it could just continue the long-running strategy of driving public services into the ground, making Britain poorer than all of our northern European neighbours and therefore decreasing the pull factors of migration. Finally, they wonder about the Home Secretary’s incredible—and I  think absurd—claim that 100 million people are ready to come to the UK, and they want to say to the Home Secretary that it is going to take a lot more than a Bill copied and pasted from the Policy Exchange paper to make a difference.

Suella Braverman: The hon. Member’s so-called absurd claim is actually backed up by the United Nations. More importantly, it is frankly naive to suggest that everybody coming here on a boat is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing for humanitarian reasons. The reality is that many of these people are economic migrants who are abusing our asylum system, and that is what this Bill aims to stop.

Gareth Bacon: The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said that we need solutions, not slogans, so could my right hon. and learned Friend please tell me of a single proposal the right hon. Lady has made that is anything more than an empty slogan? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that Labour Members do not have a plan, and they do not really want one either because they simply do not take this issue seriously?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition made a grand show of his five great missions to fix the country. Tellingly, he omitted stopping the boats. Either he does not care about illegal migration, or he does not know what to do about it.

Ruth Jones: The people in my constituency were outraged by the fact that last year there were just four prosecutions for people smuggling a month, while 46,000 people crossed the channel. Why is there nothing in this Government’s widely trailed plans to tackle these criminal gangs?

Suella Braverman: Tackling the criminal gangs at the root of this problem is absolutely essential. That is why we have increased our funding to the NCA to ensure that there is better operationalising, better intelligence sharing and better co-operation with European partners, and that is why I am very pleased that many criminal gangs have been shut down and 500 convictions have been secured.

Matt Warman: The Ukraine and Afghanistan schemes clearly show the enormous compassion of the British people, but the reality is that the abuse of the system, particularly the use of hotels for people seeking asylum, saps that compassion. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we have to end the use of hotels and that this Bill will be a crucial part of that? Can she say when she hopes to be able to lay out a plan to put a timetable on ending the use of hotels?

Suella Braverman: I know from my hon. Friend’s representations that in his community there are particular challenges with people in hotels. We are using hotels to accommodate asylum seekers because there are too many people coming here illegally. Once we stop the business model of people coming here illegally, we will be able to stop the use of hotels.

Chris Evans: There has to be a strong deterrent when these criminal gangs are found people smuggling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) has said, there were only four prosecutions per month against 46,000 crossings last year. How is the Home Secretary going to target the criminal gangs? When they are caught, they have to know that they are going to be punished for their evil trade.

Suella Braverman: I actually joined a dawn raid with the National Crime Agency a few months ago as it was going to arrest a people smuggler. There is a huge programme of work ongoing to ensure that there is proper intelligence sharing, proper resource and adequate funding to take a tough line against the criminal, evil people-smuggling gangs.

Anna Firth: Constituents in Southend West will warmly welcome the fact that this Government are taking a clear stand against illegal immigration, breaking the business model that the vile people-smuggling gangs depend on and stopping the boats. However, one of the most common complaints I hear on the doorstep is about expensive hotels housing asylum seekers while homelessness, sometimes including our armed forces veterans, is on the rise. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that that is not just unfair on the British taxpayer, but deeply unfair on those genuinely in need who are waiting patiently and legally for a roof over their heads?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak for the good people of Southend West in the way she does. The reality is that we have far too many people coming here. They put pressure on our accommodation, and therefore we are now forced to accommodate them in the expensive hotel estate. That cannot continue. It is costly, it is inappropriate and, frankly, it is unfair on the asylum seeker, because it is no fit place to stay for an indefinite period of time.

Stewart Hosie: Imagine being a Tory Home Secretary whose party is supported by barely one in five people having the arrogance to stand up in this Chamber and talk about a patriotic majority being taken for a ride. Imagine having the absolute audacity to stand up in this Chamber and tell this House that there are 100 million people around the world and they are all coming here. No, they are not. The only way this Minister can prove that this is anything other than crass, dog-whistle politics is to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) from the Front Bench: if she was serious, why would she be bringing forward legislation that barely lays a glove on the people smugglers?

Suella Braverman: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you what is audacious. It is for SNP Members to naively claim that everybody coming here is a genuine refugee or asylum seeker, and then to fail to take their fair share of accommodation. They have wholly failed to properly accommodate asylum seekers, demonstrating a paltry number compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Jonathan Gullis: I always enjoy crossing swords with the Opposition. The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will warmly welcome what the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have delivered today, although they would be even warmer if we at the very least said we would be derogating from the ECHR in this particular case. However, while Labour Members use their confected outrage on the Opposition Benches here in Westminster, Stoke-on-Trent Labour members keep their heads buried in the sand, with councillors and candidates refusing to make any comments on immigration policy, because they know what the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke think. They refused to sign a petition to empty the hotels in Stoke-on-Trent, which I started and brought to this House. Will the Home Secretary tell me when the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke can expect to see their hotels cleared and emptied, and will it be as soon as possible?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure by the Labour party to properly address this subject. The Leader of the Opposition does not mention it in his five big missions, because he does not care and he does not know. Labour Members vote against every measure we put forward to deport foreign national offenders and streamline our asylum system. They would scrap the Rwanda partnership. They write letters to stop our deportation of serious foreign criminals. That is what today’s Labour party is like. Colleagues, the fight-back starts now.

Luke Pollard: Britain is and should remain a beacon for LGBT rights, so can I ask Home Secretary a particular question about LGBT asylum seekers who are coming to the UK, fleeing persecution because of their sexuality—who they love and who they are—and who do not come from a country where there is an existing safe route? Will they be deported back to that country where they are being abused, or will they be deported to Rwanda, where the FCO’s travel advice says:
“LGBT individuals…experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities”?
Can the Home Secretary reassure a gay MP here like myself that we are not turning our back on LGBT asylum seekers who are fleeing appalling abuse simply for being themselves?

Suella Braverman: What I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman is that the fundamental objective in this legislation is to stop people leaving safe countries to come to the United Kingdom and claim asylum. That is the fundamental principle running through our international obligations, whether it is the refugee convention or other conventions. If people are coming here from a safe country, they really should not be claiming asylum in the first place.

Ben Bradley: I was horrified to hear that those on the Opposition Benches feel that this is about xenophobia and racism, scapegoating and dog-whistle politics. This is a simple matter of fairness—fairness for my constituents, who work hard and do the right thing, who see other people who arrive here illegally able to access the taxpayer-funded housing and support that they themselves struggle to access. They have been  frustrated by delays and problems in implementing these measures to prevent that from happening, so can my right hon. and learned Friend give her absolute assurance that she is willing to do whatever is necessary to get the outcomes that my constituents deserve?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is right. His constituents deserve fairness, pragmatism and compassion in controlling our borders. It is not racist to say there is too much illegal migration. It is not racist to say we cannot go on spending £6 million on hotel accommodation. It is not bigoted to say people should not be breaking the law to come here. It is fair, it is pragmatic and it is compassionate.

Mike Kane: I represent an airport seat and have a number of hotels currently in use in my constituency, but for 19 months one hotel in particular has since the fall of Kabul been used by Afghans. Is it a competency issue that we cannot process their claims, or is it a confidence issue? I think it is a confidence issue, because the civil service has lost confidence in this Administration carrying out any effective policies whatsoever.

Suella Braverman: I encourage the hon. Gentleman to keep in mind the global and indeed European dimension to this problem. Other EU nations are grappling with unprecedented levels of illegal migration. Some countries are saying they are going to stop accommodating people and instead let them abscond willingly. Some countries are accommodating migrants in sports halls and inappropriate accommodation. This is a global challenge and we have to take measures to deal with it.

Scott Benton: This Parliament and this nation must be sovereign when it comes to controlling our borders. It is completely unacceptable that a foreign court can seek to inhibit the wishes of the elected Government of the day. Although I strongly welcome the measures outlined by the Home Secretary, what assurances can she give to the House that these new measures, and indeed our Rwandan policy, can be implemented without interference from foreign judges?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend is right to highlight concerns about the process to which we have been subject from Strasbourg. That is why there is a clause in the Bill relating to rule 39, and we will be closely specifying the details of what we are going to propose. In the meantime, I greatly welcome the vindication by the High Court of our Rwandan partnership in December. We now proceed to the Appeal Court and we wait to see what the courts and their justices decide.

Fleur Anderson: Wandsworth is proud to have welcomed refugees for hundreds of years and to be a borough of sanctuary. This Bill sounds like a charter for lawyers. This retread of failed policies relies on returns to third countries; that was in last year’s Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but 99% of people were not returned because the Government do not have return agreements. Will the Home Secretary give us a list now of the return agreements currently being negotiated and the deadline for reaching those new agreements, because we will need to know before we vote on this Bill?

Suella Braverman: We have been in negotiations with several countries, which is why I welcomed the agreement the Prime Minister struck with Albania at the end of last year. Let me be clear: we welcome the contributions of Albanians who come here lawfully, but we need to work together with the Albanian Government to properly relocate back to Albania those who do not have a legal right to be here.

Jack Brereton: People in Stoke-on-Trent are fed up with being ignored and having their generosity taken for granted, and I fully support the measures being introduced today. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that these actions will be taken swiftly and we will see deportations of those here illegally as soon as possible?

Suella Braverman: The matter is now urgent and we need to move quickly. That is why we have brought the Bill forward today. We hope to proceed with a swift timetable in Parliament. I urge all Members of Parliament to support this Bill; we must scrutinise it effectively, but we want to get on and get the powers on to the statute book and deliver them in material terms as soon as possible.

Alex Cunningham: Every week I have more asylum seekers asking for my help to progress their claims. Some have waited for up to a year; most have waited several. They are left languishing at home, awaiting an appointment or a decision and are desperate to get on with their lives; many are now blighted with mental and other illnesses. Is this latest stunt by the Home Secretary not yet another attempt to direct attention away from her failure to deal with the escalating backlog, which has grown constantly for years on end?

Suella Braverman: The challenges the hon. Gentleman describes that are faced by asylum seekers are exactly why he should support the Bill. We want to reduce the number of people coming here illegally. We want to reduce the number of people waiting for a decision in the asylum backlog. Only by supporting this Bill will we be able to support the genuine asylum seekers in this country.

John Stevenson: I welcome the proposed legislation, but the reality is that we need the confidence of the British people in our immigration system. To give additional confidence to local residents in Carlisle and other provincial towns and cities, will the Minister agree to an immediate moratorium on the use of hotels?

Suella Braverman: When someone is waiting for an asylum decision, there is a duty on the Home Office to accommodate them and provide them with appropriate support. Therefore, we have been forced to use hotel accommodation in many towns and cities across the United Kingdom. It is important that appropriate support is provided to asylum seekers to avoid destitution and homelessness.

Carol Monaghan: I have the situation in my constituency where businesses are unable to recruit staff yet living upstairs are asylum seekers who are unable to work. The Home Secretary has talked about the cost to the UK of housing asylum seekers; when is she going to get realistic about this and allow people waiting for their asylum claims to be decided to access the world of work?

Suella Braverman: Many people, such as those who have come here under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme or the Ukrainian scheme, are able to work in this country, and many of them do. I encourage all Members to support people in those communities to find work through their local jobcentres.

Paul Bristow: Does the Home Secretary agree that, despite the noise and howls from Opposition Members, we are forgetting that these measures will save lives—that people would otherwise be drowning in the channel or suffocating in the backs of lorries? Stopping the boats is the compassionate thing to do, and the only thing Labour’s open border policies would do is enrich people smugglers and risk death in the channel.

Suella Braverman: Fundamentally, these are human-itarian measures that we are bringing forward with precisely the goal my hon. Friend sets out. We need to stop people dying in the channel. We need to stop people being exploited by criminal gangs. We need to stop the criminality. That is why I encourage everybody to get behind the Bill.

Richard Foord: As of September last year, the backlog of asylum applications stood at 115,000 and might include some economic migrants. The average waiting time for an initial decision is 20 months. Does the Home Secretary recognise the moral hazard here: economic migrants coming here in small boats have no incentive to guard against the risk of entering those boats, because others have been protected by her Government against the consequences of being returned when they get here, which damages the protections for genuine asylum seekers?

Suella Braverman: The vast majority of people arriving via small boats have chosen to make that journey of their own free will. They have paid money, and they are largely young, healthy men. There is no good reason in many instances for them to claim asylum, and they should not be abusing our asylum rules to do so.

Tom Randall: On behalf of all the residents of Gedling who have raised the issue of small boats with me, may I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement? Will she confirm that the forthcoming legislation will end the morally reprehensible practice whereby smugglers are a de facto part of the asylum process, and does she agree that, given the dangers of cross-channel smuggling, a robust approach is right, fair and humane?

Suella Braverman: One of the root causes of this problem is the proliferation of sophisticated, well co-ordinated and well-resourced criminal gangs operating across transnational boundaries on the continent. That is why we have increased resources for the National Crime Agency and increased co-operation and intelligence sharing with the French. Only by working together with our European partners will we be able to smash the business model of the people smugglers.

Jim Shannon: For myself, for the Secretary of State and for many there is a need to help and protect the vulnerable. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that with the better weather there will undoubtedly be a rise in the numbers making illegal crossings? Does she believe that we should engage further  with the French authorities to facilitate legal migration in a more structured way? Will the Bill enable those who seek asylum legally to be processed efficiently, while sending the clear message that if they come here illegally, asylum will automatically be denied?

Suella Braverman: We institute in the Bill some procedural requirements and limitations on legal claims, and time limits for bringing those claims. The aim is to reduce attempts to thwart removal and detention, and it strikes the right balance between fairness and compassion.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: On behalf of the people of Bassetlaw, I warmly welcome the Bill introduced by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, which we have been crying out for. The Opposition often speak of safe and legal routes, which of course we already have, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what they actually mean is that they support open borders, blanket approvals and amnesties for those who want to want to cheat our system, cheat our constituents and cheat genuine refugees?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend puts it very well. Labour’s policy on this issue is indeed open borders. A former Labour Home Secretary did grant an amnesty to asylum seekers. It is about ensuring that illegal migration continues through the back door. That is not what the British people voted for; that is not what this Parliament will vote for.

Peter Grant: It will not have escaped the Home Secretary’s notice that despite what I have no doubt have been the best efforts of her Government Whips, they have not found a single Member of Parliament from a Scottish constituency to have a single good word to say about the Bill. The fact is that Scotland’s MPs, Scotland’s Government, Scotland’s local authorities and Scotland’s people speak as one in saying that our biggest complaint about the UK asylum system is that her Government will not allow us to welcome as many refugees and asylum seekers as we want to. May I make a suggestion to the Home Secretary? Will she agree, even on a temporary pilot basis, to allow the Scottish Government to take control of our asylum system? We will see whether the best way to deal with asylum seekers is to treat them like human beings or to treat them in the way she wants to treat them.

Suella Braverman: All the Scottish National party can point to is a track record of failure when it comes to discharging its humanitarian duties to asylum seekers. It totally failed to support Ukrainians and had to hand over responsibility to the UK Government. It totally failed to take its fair share of refugees in comparison to other parts of the UK. It is failure, failure, failure from the SNP.

Tom Hunt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it is fair to deduce from today’s debate that the Labour party thinks it is totally fine to turn up here illegally and stay here for as long as you want? Does she think it is fair to assume that it opposes any kind of cap on refugee numbers? Does she agree that that is hardly surprising, bearing in mind that the leader of the Labour party, in a different guise, said that there is a
“racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law”?
That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was a human rights lawyer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that the Labour party should just be honest about what it is: pro open borders, anti any control on immigration and completely out of step with the majority of people of this country? It will be exposed.

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend puts it very powerfully. That is what Labour’s policy is: uncontrolled immigration, open borders, an amnesty for asylum seekers and a total disregard for what the British people want.

Patrick Grady: How can we know if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not, unless they are allowed to make a claim and that claim is fairly and independently assessed? When was the last time the Home Secretary actually met another human being who had come here on a small boat? Has she ever listened to their stories of what they have gone through and what their hopes for the future are? Or does she just look them in the eye and tell them they are not welcome here?

Suella Braverman: The reality is that we need to all work together now to find a pragmatic, compassionate and fair solution to this problem. That is why I have introduced these measures today and why I encourage all Members to support them.

Jonathan Edwards: Last week, we saw with the revised Northern Ireland protocol deal what progress can be made when we work collaboratively with our European partners. Rather than the sabre-rattling content of this statement, is not the reality that the most effective way to deal with the issue of small boats crossing the channel is to work in full collaboration with our European partners? Is it not the case that the number of small boat crossings has increased substantially since Brexit?

Suella Braverman: The reality is that we have developed much closer co-operation with our French partners on this very issue. That is why I am pleased that we struck a good deal with them at the end of last year. The Prime Minister is heading to Paris—I will be accompanying him—later this week to talk further with our French partners on how to tackle this issue, among many others.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for responding to questions for an hour and 50 minutes.

Science and Technology Framework

Michelle Donelan: The creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology marks a watershed moment for science, innovation and technology in the UK. We now have a Government Department that focuses on a single mission: to make the UK a science and technology superpower. Science and technology is absolutely critical to the UK’s future prosperity and security, and to the health and wellbeing of our citizens and our environment. That is why it is a central pillar of the integrated review. Countries that embrace science and technology will be prosperous and secure, home to the innovators and technology companies of the future. Those that don’t, won’t.
My vision for DSIT starts from an extraordinary position. Last year, the UK joined only China and the US in having a technology sector worth over $1 trillion. Despite our relative size, Britain outperforms our closest competitors and we are a main challenger nation to the US and China in many areas. We have four of the world’s top 10 universities. Just eight of our university towns are home to more unicorns than the whole of France and Germany combined. However, when other countries are investing further and faster in science and tech, we must do the same. We have an incredibly unique and powerful platform from which to grow and innovate for the benefit of the British people, which is why I have said I plan to take a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to this new Department.
I will ensure that in both the short term and the long term, our work is based on improving people’s daily lives in ways they can feel and see around them. The Government’s vision for the future is an NHS that uses artificial intelligence to find, treat and reduce illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, so we have more time with our loved ones. We should have local transport services that allow us to travel faster, safer and cleaner than our parents did. The schools of the future should be powered by the kinds of technology that unlock hidden talents in every child, no matter where they live. As the “Department for the Future”, our focus will be on how science, technology and innovation can ensure the British people live longer, safer, healthier and happier lives.
Such an important goal requires immediate action, which is why in my first few weeks as Technology Secretary I have been focused relentlessly on action and delivery. I see this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to send a clear signal around the world that Britain plans to lead the way in science, innovation and technology. The key steps we have taken are as follows.
Yesterday, we published the UK science and technology framework, which sets out our goals and vision for science and technology in an enduring framework that will see us through to 2030. It has been developed in close collaboration with the UK science and technology sector, and represents a commitment to scaling our ambitions and delivering the most critical action needed to secure strategic advantage through science and technology. The framework is the strategic anchor that Government policy will deliver against, and to which the Government will hold themselves accountable. It sets out 10 things that the Government must do to sustain strategic advantage in science and technology.
First, we must identify the technologies most critical to the UK’s objectives. Secondly, we must signal the UK’s science and technology strengths and ambitions both at home and abroad to attract talent and investment and boost our global influence. Thirdly, we must boost private and public investment in research and development for economic growth and better productivity.
Fourthly, we must build on the UK’s already amazing talent and skills base. Fifthly, we must finance innovative science and technology companies. Sixthly, we must use Government procurement to stimulate innovation in key sectors and technologies. Seventhly, we must take international opportunities to shape the global science and technology landscape through strategic international engagement, diplomacy and partnerships.
Eighthly, we must ensure that science and technology objectives are supported by access to the best physical and digital infrastructure that will attract talent, investment and discoveries. Ninthly, we must leverage post-Brexit freedoms to create world-leading pro-innovation regulation and influence global technological standards. Tenthly, we must create a pro-innovation culture throughout the UK’s public sector to improve the way our public services run.
We have also taken immediate steps. The delivery of this new framework will begin immediately with an initial raft of projects worth around £500 million, of which £370 million is new money. That will ensure that the UK has the skills and infrastructure to take a global lead in game-changing technologies. That includes £250 million of investment in three truly transformational technologies to build on the UK’s leadership in AI, quantum technologies and engineering biology. That funding will help a range of industries tackle the biggest global challenges such as climate change and healthcare and will form part of our commitment to the five key technologies, which include semiconductors and future telecommunications.
We have also published Sir Paul Nurse’s “Independent Review of the UK’s Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscape”, with recommendations to make the most of the UK’s research organisations, testing different science funding models to support a range of innovative institutional models, such as focused research organisations, working with industry and partners to open up new funding opportunities. Up to £50 million will spur co-investment in science from the private sector and philanthropists, to drive the discoveries of the future, subject to business cases. The Government are already in talks with Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative by Eric and Wendy Schmidt, about additional support of up to $20 million as part of that work.
Some £117 million of existing funding will create hundreds of new PhDs for AI researchers, and £8 million will help to find the next generation of AI leaders around the world. A £50 million uplift to world-class labs funding will help research institutes and universities to improve facilities, so that UK researchers have access to the very best labs and equipment that they need to keep producing that world-class science. A £10 million uplift to the UK innovation and science seed fund, totalling £50 million, will boost the UK’s next technology and science start-ups, which could be the next Apple, Google or Tesla.
We have outlined plans to set up an Exascale supercomputer facility—the most powerful compute capability, which could solve problems as complex as nuclear fusion, as well as a programme to provide dedicated compute capacity for important AI research, as part of our initial response to the future of compute review, which was also published yesterday. Some £9 million in Government funding will support the establishment of a quantum computing research centre in Daresbury in the north-west.
On next steps, each of the 10 framework strands has a lead Department tasked with putting in place a clear action plan, to which they will be accountable during the year. Delivery against those plans will be overseen by the National Science and Technology Council, which will hold Departments to account and drive pace. Alongside the development of those ambitious plans and the framework, we have also set out our initial work under each of the 10 priorities, which will include our skills and talent base.
On priority technologies, we will develop a pro-innovation approach to regulating AI, which will be detailed in our White Paper in the coming weeks. On R&D investment, we will respond to the Tickell review of research bureaucracy, and Sir Paul Nurse’s review of the research, development and innovation landscape. We will work with industry and partners to increase inward investment by the summer recess. On financing innovative science and technology companies, we will build on the strong track record of the British Business Bank to strengthen support for the UK’s science and technology companies.
This ambitious plan will focus on getting actions out the door now, as well as a plan for the future. This Government are both reactive and, crucially, proactive when it comes to science and technology, to ensure that we can be a superpower by 2030.

Chi Onwurah: I welcome the Secretary of State to her place, and I thank her for the advance notice of her statement.
I welcome the framework. It will take pride of place on my virtual bookshelf next to the Government’s innovation strategy, the R&D road map, the science plan, numerous grand challenges, industrial strategies, sector deals and two UKRI reorganisations. We have seen nine changes of Science Minister in five years. Britain is a world-leading science nation, and we deserve a framework with a longer shelf life than a lettuce, especially given the shortage of salad items under this Government.
It is good to see the Government setting out the principles for identifying the scientific capabilities that we need to protect and grow, and the outcomes that we wish to see from science, as well as seeking to increase STEM skills in teaching and support for start-ups and spin-outs. On the eve of International Women’s Day, and as a chartered engineer, I enthusiastically welcome the ambition to diversify the science and technology workforce. Let us work together to make that ambition a reality.
I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. How do the five critical technologies in the framework relate to the 17 sensitive areas in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, and the five key growth  industries in the autumn statement? When will each critical technology have the appropriate regulatory framework that she talked about? Science-driven industries critical to our future prosperity, such as space, autonomous vehicles, batteries and steel, are not even mentioned. Labour has committed to an industrial strategy council on a statutory footing. Do Government have an industrial strategy?
The framework rightly says that procurement is key to innovation. Why, then, have the Government objected to our amendments to the Procurement Bill to ensure that procurement is not captured by cronyism? The Government committed to £22 billion of science funding by 2027. Will the Secretary of State say what the current funding commitment is now? How much of the £370 million mentioned in the framework is truly new? If it is new, how is she paying for it? The Government promised that science spend will double, but the framework talks of raising science spend outside the greater south-east by only 40%. That suggests that our regional centres of innovation will not benefit from this increased funding. Is that all she has to say about the importance of regional innovation? What of the clusters that the Science Minister talks up so much?
Start-ups and scale-ups are key to sustainable green growth, but the £10 million uplift to the seed fund mentioned here would not meet the early-stage funding requirements of one future Google. Will the Government adopt the recommendations of Labour’s start-up and scale-up review to drive innovative growth across our country?
The biggest question is what is not in the framework—Horizon Europe, the world's biggest science programme. Did the Secretary of State really think that she could get through the statement without even mentioning it? Thanks to the Tories, our brightest and best UK scientists are still having to choose between the funding that they desperately need and the country that they love. British research and British business are feeling the chilling impact of not being part of the world’s greatest scientific collaboration. Can the Secretary of State confirm that now that the Windsor framework has been agreed, Horizon association will follow? Specifically, will the Chancellor’s Budget next week include association funding?
Labour believes that innovation and science are critical to building strong and self-sufficient national and regional economies. We see a clear path from investing in scientific research to the jobs that people can raise a family on. With our ambitious national missions, Labour would stoke the innovation engine to drive high-skilled growth, access new and diverse talent pools and catalyse regions that have been left out of science investment. I fear that this framework is another wish list designed to be shelved or scrapped at the earliest convenience of a Government addicted to sticking-plaster policies. Only a Labour Government, with our long-term industrial strategy, will deliver the science sector and the jobs that our country needs.

Michelle Donelan: I thank the hon. Member for her comments, but in reality it is this Government who are here today delivering jobs and a better future for the British public. As I said in my statement, we are focusing not only on actions today, but on a strategic long-term approach to ensure that we are a science and technology superpower by 2030.
The hon. Member said that there are more technologies than the five that we have identified. Of course there are. The ones we have identified are the key strategic ones, but there is a great deal of work that my ministerial team and I are doing. On funding, we are investing £20 billion by 2024-25, as we have said on the record. The £370 million that we announced yesterday is a new spending commitment that we had not previously outlined. On geographical spread across the nation, we have made a strategic commitment to ensure that 55% of the spend is outside the south-east.
The framework that we have set out is just one part of the work that my Department is doing. Let us not forget that it was established just four weeks ago. In one month, we have not only published a comprehensive framework plan, but got on with key actions to drive the agenda forward. This Government mean business. We have worked very hard in the past few weeks to talk collaboratively with industry and with researchers.
I am not going to take the Opposition’s word about what is wrong. Let us have a look at what experts and people on the ground have to say. Professor Sir Ian Boyd, president of the Royal Society of Biology, says:
“Science and technology is already a central plank of modern life. Putting this centre-stage in government strategy is essential and welcome.”
Professor Julia Black, president of the British Academy, says:
“The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s announcements reaffirm the Government’s ambition to put the UK at the forefront of global research, development and innovation”.
I could go on all day long, because our announcement has been wholeheartedly welcomed.
The hon. Member asked about Horizon. This is an announcement about our framework—that is what is on the annunciator screen—and not about Horizon, but I will answer her question anyway. We have not changed our position on Horizon. For the past two years, we have tried to associate. It was in the original deal, and we welcome the comments from the EU. Of course, terms would have to be favourable for the UK—we have lost two years—and we would have to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. We cannot wait around for another two years, because we want to put our researchers first. That is why we have done the responsible and right thing and worked up a plan B, which stands ready should we need it, but our position on Horizon has not changed. We look forward to continuing our conversations with the EU.

Nigel Evans: I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Greg Clark: It is a great pleasure to welcome my right hon. Friend and her ministerial team to their positions. It has been some years since a Science Minister stood at the Dispatch Box as a Secretary of State; I hope that she and her team will have a very successful tenure. I warmly welcome the priority that the Government are giving to science and technology at one of the most exciting times for it since the first industrial revolution. My Committee looks forward to welcoming her to discuss her work and the framework.
I have a few specific questions. First, can my right hon. Friend commit that the £1.65 billion from the science budget that was returned to the Treasury last  week as part of the supplementary estimates will go back to the science budget and has not been lost? Secondly, I am interested in what she says about Horizon. Will she say when the negotiations will begin? She rightly says that they cannot go on forever, but how long will she allow them to continue before plan B is enacted? Finally, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that in areas such as battery technology, which is a responsibility of her Department, of the Department for Business and Trade and of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, there is a united and coherent approach across Government so that investors know what the policy is and who to deal with?

Michelle Donelan: My ministerial team and I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend’s Committee. It was good to speak to him yesterday. As I said then, funding remains available to finalise association with EU programmes. In the event that we do not associate, UK researchers and businesses will receive at least as much as they would have through Horizon over the spending review period.
The Government have stepped in to continue to support the UK’s world-leading R&D sector. We have extended the Horizon guarantee until the end of June 2023, as we announced yesterday. The Government have provided £882 million to date via UKRI through the guarantee and they will still deliver their commitment to invest £20 billion per annum in research and development by 2024-25. That is not impacted by the £1.6 billion to which my right hon. Friend refers.
On Horizon, as I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we have not changed our position. We continue to try to associate with Horizon, and we look forward to engaging in more deep and meaningful conversations with the EU on what is possible as we work out the potential options. I will keep my right hon. Friend and this House as informed as possible as plans develop.

Carol Monaghan: I welcome the creation of the new Department and welcome the Secretary of State to her position. I thank her for advance sight of her statement.
The framework should be seen very much as a starting point. I have to say that the Secretary of State’s comments on Horizon will not give the sector much assurance at the moment. That view is echoed by the Royal Society, which says:
“The extension of the funding underwrite announced today is a welcome intervention”
as a safety net,
“but it is yet another sticking plaster, when the ultimate goal needs to be speedy association”.
Sir Paul Nurse’s review also describes Horizon Europe association as essential, so we need a timeframe for when a decision on Horizon will be taken. We have been hearing from the Government for three years that their intention and hope is that there will be such an association, but we need a timeframe.
Dr Tim Bradshaw of the Russell Group has said that the £370 million of new funding falls far short of the £1.6 billion that had been earmarked for research  collaborations with the European Union, so it would be useful to know how the Government can continue promoting science in the UK when they are driving down funding in comparison with what was provided before Brexit.
The framework commits to establishing
“competitive advantage in attracting international talent to the UK”,
but Royal Society analysis has shown that work and study visa fees are up to six times higher than in comparable science nations. What plans do the Government have to reduce visa fees in line with other science nations?
The Secretary of State has chosen future communications as an area of focus. In 2020, a $500 million stake was invested in OneWeb to support such communications. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of the OneWeb investment in terms of future communications?
Finally, we have been asking about the semiconductor strategy for many months now. When is it likely to be published?

Michelle Donelan: On Horizon, the hon. Member seems to be rewriting history, which is slightly disappointing. We have tried for two years to associate. It was the EU, not this Government, that linked the issue with the Northern Ireland protocol. We now stand ready to continue those conversations. The £1.6 billion was earmarked for Horizon. We were not able to affiliate and associate with Horizon, which is why the money is no longer available, but we stand committed in terms of our record investment of £20 billion, which we have pledged for 2024-25.
On the conversation around attracting talent, we think it is very important that we are supporting industry and the opportunities available, so there are jobs in this country for people to come to and so they will want to forge a life here.
The semiconductor strategy will be out imminently. We have been doing a great deal of work to ensure that it comes out in exactly the right place.

Tracey Crouch: The Secretary of State will know that there are acute shortages of teachers in STEM subjects. She may well also know that we on the Science and Technology Committee looked into the lack of diversity in the STEM workforce, but there are only limited references to that in the framework. Yesterday, the Minister for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), set out plans to increase the number of women working in STEM. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to see all children studying maths until the age  of 18, and I know that the Education Secretary is passionate about STEM subjects at school. However, it is not entirely clear where the Secretary of State’s Department sits in all this. Will she clarify the position? Which is the lead Department when it comes to ensuring that we improve STEM uptake and, indeed, diversification in both schools and workforces?

Michelle Donelan: On the way the framework will operate, in many of the areas, there will be a lead Department, but we will be working to hold the Departments to account, while also collaborating with them. The Department for Education will lead on the  education and skills element, but we will of course work closely with it, because we have a vested interest in ensuring that the framework delivers and we can meet that goal of a science and technology superpower by 2030. However, I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the examples given in the framework are intended to provide a flavour of what every Department will be doing; they are not an exhaustive list. Departments will be coming up with more policies and ideas over the coming years, but they will all have to be linked with the framework, because this is a Government who will be strategic and relentlessly focused.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Secretary of State says that her ambition is to send the message around the world that the UK is a leader in science and technology, and I share that ambition, but, sadly, the Sir Paul Nurse review of research and development—published today—says that funding provided by the Government is limited, and below that of other competitive nations. In fact, the UK is 27th out of 36 OECD nations when it comes to Government funding of R&D. If the Secretary of State is serious about this ambition, as I truly hope she is—and it would be helpful if she listened to what I am saying—will she commit today to assuring the House that, by next year, the UK will be No. 1 among all the OECD nations in respect of Government funding of R&D?

Michelle Donelan: What I can do is reaffirm the commitment that by 2024-25 we will have a record level of R&D spending in this country: £20 billion. Rather than simply standing here announcing endless pots of money, we are being strategic in our spending, and working with the sector when we come up with our policies and plans.

Stephen Metcalfe: I welcome the statement and wholeheartedly support it, but may I remind the House that science is a global endeavour? If we are to deliver on the ambitions set out in the framework, we will need to work with our partners. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the visa system in particular to ensure that it does not act as a barrier to attracting world-leading scientists and technicians to the UK to help us to deliver on those ambitions?

Michelle Donelan: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the framework is about our international collaboration with partners. Of course we need to grow our own talent, a point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), but we also need to attract talent, and to ensure that our visa system—as well as many other factors—enables that to happen. I will continue to work on that issue across Government.

Daniel Zeichner: Horizon is about collaboration, not just money. May I urge the Secretary of State to impress that on the Prime Minister? She will also be aware that confidence in the life sciences sector is fragile at present, whether it be in relation to R&D tax credits, the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, or Horizon, and that we have fallen from fourth to 10th among the best countries in which to conduct late-place clinical trials. What is she going to do about that?

Michelle Donelan: The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), has taken the lead on that, and we are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are challenges that we need to address, and over the coming weeks and months he will see that this is a Government taking action.

John Redwood: How will the Government respond to America’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which offers such a wide range of tax breaks, favourable Government contracts and favourable regulation to onshore much more science and technology, and threatens to divert investment from the UK?

Michelle Donelan: It is, of course, important for us to create a favourable economic climate for business to prosper. As for regulation, it will be at the heart of our work. We have already commissioned Sir Patrick Vallance to publish a report on the regulation of emerging technology, which will be published imminently, and we will be doing “deep dives” into how we can get the regulatory framework right in order to support innovation, technology and science that is based in the UK.

Layla Moran: I welcome the Secretary of State and her team. I hope she will join me in celebrating the achievements of Oxfordshire’s researchers, not just at the universities but in the great science parks: they are, I am sure, four square behind her visions. One of the big issues that they raise with me is the “attracting talent” strand, so I am glad she has raised that subject. Horizon Europe is a big part of it, but it was not just the money but the ecosystem that was important to those researchers. However, will the Secretary of State look again at the visa system, and specifically at the costs? Analysis from the Royal Society shows that the cost of obtaining a visa for researchers to come to our country is about six times higher than the cost among our competitors. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Home Office about that?

Michelle Donelan: What we really want to do is provide the research community with complete clarity and the certainty that they have not been able to have for the last two years while we have waited around trying to associate with Horizon. As I said at the outset, we want that process to be relatively swift. As for the question of visas, of course we want to attract the brightest and the best. Part of yesterday’s announcement was about how we are going not just to wait for people to want to come here, but to be proactive and to utilise our global talent network to go out and find them and to persuade them of the value of locating and working in the UK.

James Gray: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her position. Does she agree that one area of outstanding science in the United Kingdom is in the Arctic and the Antarctic? Our polar scientific research is superb, thanks to the National Environment Research Council, the British Antarctic Survey and the 78 universities with first-class polar research departments. I have not had a chance to read her framework paper, but what more can the Government do within the framework to encourage  polar research, which is so superb in this country but needs more co-ordination and, of course, always needs more encouragement from the Government?

Michelle Donelan: I commend my hon. Friend for all the great work that he does and has done consistently over the years. I know that he held a meeting here to dive deep into this issue again and to raise its profile. Of course the work is important geopolitically, but it is also important to addressing net zero. We work closely with partners. Our approach is global, not just internal, which is key to the framework.

Barry Sheerman: I should declare an interest, in that I have a long-standing experience and love of the higher education system. I also co-chair the Higher Education Commission with Lord Norton.
I like a lot of the stuff that the Secretary of State has said today, particularly what she has said about having a much more focused Department, but I should warn her that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) is right: morale is low in the higher education sector and we need to put that right. We also need the resources of good management in universities. We must make them open to dialogue and partnership with local businesses, small businesses and big businesses. I ask the Secretary of State please to look closely at that innovation and enterprise.

Michelle Donelan: This is at the heart of the Nurse review, which talks of the diversification of the research sector and how we can open up the opportunities that the hon. Gentleman has described. As a former higher education Minister, I know only too well the challenges that universities can face in this regard. My policy is always an open-door policy, and I work closely and in collaboration with the universities to break down some of those barriers and create those opportunities.

Andrew Jones: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement The third element of her framework plan was growing private and public investment to boost productivity. Does she agree that what is crucial is not just the development of new ideas but their implementation, because that is how productivity will be boosted? Will she ensure that there is a focus throughout Government on implementation and scale-ups, given that all Departments can play a role in the delivery of progress?

Michelle Donelan: My hon. Friend is right. It is not just about the funding; it is also about the implementation, the focus and a strategic approach, which is why this Government want to lead from the front. We need to focus not just on start-ups but on scale-ups, which is one of the things that has held us back in the UK, especially in the tech sector. My Department will play a critical role in supporting the industry to tackle this.

Rachael Maskell: York has already framed its future economy, whether through Buy Yorkshire, with 4,000 more jobs for our city and region, through digital and advanced rail, which is currently providing 5,500 jobs and has the ability to  grow, or through the emerging digital creative sector, which is an exciting innovation across York. However, the Government have been slow in giving that support and getting the money out of the door. We are frustrated because we want to press ahead, so how will the Secretary of State deliver for our city?

Michelle Donelan: I pledge to meet the hon. Member and listen carefully to the challenges that she has experienced, so that we can address them not just in her area but in other areas.

Matt Warman: I welcome the joining together of these strands of Government, not least because of the broadband programme, and my right hon. Friend truly has the opportunity to be the Secretary of State for growth. That is hugely important. Does she agree that it is the UK’s leading role in the regulatory space that allows us potentially to be a world leader in the regulation of areas such as artificial intelligence, where there is not only a vital national security angle but a vital economic opportunity that we can seize at this unique moment in that technology’s history?

Michelle Donelan: Exactly. As my hon. Friend points out, this is about regulation to create innovation, and we need to get those regulatory frameworks right. We also need to look at the behaviour of the regulators themselves, at how they interact with one another and at the burden they place on researchers and businesses alike.

Matt Rodda: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Small and medium-sized tech companies provide a vital engine of growth in our economy, particularly in the Thames valley and in towns such as Reading. Can she say more about what her Department is doing to support these vital small and medium-sized businesses?

Michelle Donelan: Indeed. When we talk about our science and technology agenda, this is not just to support big tech; it is to support all businesses, including those small and medium-sized ones, which we hope to be able to support to scale up and continue to grow and create jobs. At the heart of our plans, the hon. Gentleman will see how we can support them in a range of different ways through the 10-point plan and by being strategic across Government, from our approach on skills to our approach on regulation. And let us not forget that this Department is coming forward with a number of pieces of legislation, including the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which will help to support businesses to get rid of some of that unnecessary burden, and the digital markets Bill, which is focused on freeing up some of those small businesses and unlocking opportunities for growth.

Damian Collins: I welcome the framework and also my right hon. Friend’s commitment that the Government will soon be publishing the national semiconductor strategy. Does she agree that this is a fantastic opportunity to highlight not just the leading role in the world that British companies play in semiconductor design, but the attractiveness of the UK for investment in advanced manufacturing, particularly in compound semiconductors?

Michelle Donelan: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our work in semiconductors is important not just for national security but for economic security, and we have some key strengths when it comes to research and development for semiconductors, and our compound semiconductor manufacturing sector. We will continue to support semiconductors and come forward with that strategy in the coming days or weeks.

Jonathan Edwards: Research projects at Welsh universities face an immediate cliff edge with the end of European funds, which will run out at the end of the month, endangering 60 projects and 1,000 jobs. This affects the whole of the UK, but there is a specific issue in Wales due to the concentration of European funding there over the years. Can I therefore use this statement to ask the Secretary of State whether she will discuss with the Treasury the need to announce bridge funding in the Budget next week to protect these projects while the replacement funding is settled?

Michelle Donelan: I am aware of this issue, as is my ministerial team, and we pledge to meet the hon. Member to discuss this in detail in the coming weeks.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Secretary of State knows that we are technologically and scientifically ready for the small and medium reactors that we need to roll out across the United Kingdom. They are world beaters. Will the Secretary of State include this in all the principles that she is putting forward today, because it is absolutely vital? We need the energy and we also need to sell these reactors, because they are superb.

Michelle Donelan: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This highlights how the Department will be working hand in hand with other Departments. On this agenda, we will be working closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is our Department that will be focusing on innovation and the technologies of tomorrow, but it is incumbent on us to work with the other Departments to deliver them in time to be ready for tomorrow.

Richard Foord: The issue with Horizon is that UK-based researchers were able to take more from the scheme than the UK Government contributed to it. The Times reports today that the Prime Minister is said to be sceptical about Horizon:
“He thinks it’s a very expensive way to fund a lot of small academic collaborations which don’t really change the world.”
Does the Secretary of State recognise that science is an international endeavour, that incremental developments in science do change the world and that the UK would be a net beneficiary of Horizon if only we could  associate?

Michelle Donelan: The entire point of our announcement yesterday was that we believe that science and technology can change the world. We also believe that they can change people’s lives here in the UK, and that is why we made our announcement on the actions we are taking   now and on the long-term framework, so that we can be proactive as well as reactive. As I have said on Horizon, our position has not changed.

Anthony Browne: As somebody with a maths degree, I am naturally very supportive and enthusiastic about a Government Department dedicated to science, and I very much welcome the new framework to proactively position the UK as the science superpower. I can confirm that my constituency, where almost every village has a science park, will do more than almost any other constituency to try to turn that vision into a reality. We already have a thriving herd of unicorns, a vibrant community of Nobel prize winners and laboratories everywhere stacked full of researchers, a lot of whom were funded by the Horizon programme. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that the Government want to reopen negotiations on Horizon and that they are open to that. I accept that she cannot commit to the outcome of negotiations while they are going on, and it is good that she has a plan B in her back pocket, but negotiations create uncertainty and I wonder what reassurance she can give to my formerly Horizon-funded researchers that they will not lose their funding until we get a long-term solution.

Michelle Donelan: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to provide researchers and academics with that clarity and certainty. That is exactly why we yesterday extended the guarantee by another three months so that they can be confident, as we have talks with the EU, that there is a system in place.

Aaron Bell: I welcome the Prime Minister’s creation of this Department and warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her position as Secretary of State. I also welcome the £370 million that is being invested. In drawing up this framework, what lessons have been learned from the covid-19 pandemic and, in particular, from the success of the vaccines taskforce under Kate Bingham, whose position was, I remind the House, shamefully undermined by the Opposition?

Michelle Donelan: We have taken a great deal of learnings from the operation of the vaccines taskforce, and we have been deploying those learnings, as we can see from the life sciences missions that we have put into process. One of the key learnings relates to the work we do with industry, and also our ability to work much more quickly and to cut through red tape and regulation. My hon. Friend will see from my Department a relentless focus on cutting down that regulation, getting the regulatory framework right and cutting away some of the unnecessary bureaucracy that is holding back our nation from excelling even more.

Chris Green: I welcome the Government’s new science and technology framework, but will my right hon. Friend set out how the life science vision works within it and also speak of the amazing and rewarding jobs that will come with it?

Michelle Donelan: The framework that we set up yesterday is the strategic overarching plan for how we get to be a science and technology superpower. Of  course, we are working on many other strands to ensure that we can drive forward those policies to achieve those goals, including the life science vision.

Nigel Evans: You have had some good exercise, Mr Fell.

Simon Fell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—last but not least.
I warmly welcome this statement, and I welcome the Secretary of State and her fantastic team to the Front Bench. This statement is great news for science, and the £370 million deposit towards turning the UK into a science superpower is welcome. My constituents will be glad to hear it, as we are trying to get the Ulverston life sciences cluster off the ground. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the GSK taskforce to see how it can best engage with the strategy and take it forward?

Michelle Donelan: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what is happening in his constituency. I think it will improve his constituents’ lives with more jobs and better paid jobs, but it will also improve the lives of all our constituents. This is how we drive forward our economy, how we grow our economy, how we create better paid jobs, how we improve our healthcare and how we tackle climate change. My constituents are asking me for all those things, and it is this Government who are delivering this proactive, outcomes-based approach.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for responding to questions for more than three quarters of an hour.

Bills Presented

Illegal Migration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Suella Braverman, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Dominic Raab, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Gillian Keegan and Robert Jenrick, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control; to make provision about detention for immigration purposes; to make provision about unaccompanied children; to make provision about victims of slavery or human trafficking; to make provision about leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; to make provision about citizenship; to make provision about the inadmissibility of certain protection and certain human rights claims relating to immigration; to make provision about the maximum number of persons entering the United Kingdom annually using safe and legal routes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 262) with explanatory notes (Bill 262-EN).

Online Abuse (Reporting) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine, supported by Wera Hobhouse, Munira Wilson, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney and Richard Foord, presented a Bill to require social media companies to publish reports setting out the action they have taken to address online abuse against women and girls, and other groups of people who share a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 263).

Pension Contributions

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Anthony Browne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to pay pension contributions into a pension scheme of the employee’s choosing; and for connected purposes.
This is the moment that the House has been waiting for all day. I have a problem, and I am not the only one with this problem. In fact, many millions of people have this problem too. The value of the problem is huge—at least £37 billion—and its scale is matched only by the level of public ennui. Yes, I am talking pensions, and not any old pensions but lost and deferred pension pots.
The occupational pension system in this country was designed for a time when most people had a job for life, but gone are the days of retiring after 40 years of service at one company, leaving with a gold watch and a gold-plated pension. It is now the norm to hop between jobs. The average person will now have 11 employers over their lifetime. I am in my 50s, and I now have nine different pensions.
Millions of people have been building up multiple pension pots, one for each job. This has been massively accelerated by the Government’s highly successful introduction of auto-enrolment in 2012, which brought pension saving to new groups that had previously been absent from the system, including low earners. Participation in workplace pension saving among eligible employees increased from 55% in 2012 to 88% in 2021, which is a welcome development, but the result is an explosion in the number of people with multiple deferred pension pots. Sometimes the pots are quite large and sometimes very small, containing just a few hundred pounds or even less.
The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that there were 8 million deferred pension pots in 2020, and I have seen other estimates of up to 11 million. Unless something is done, the PPI estimates that the number will rise to 27 million by 2035. Data from the Association of British Insurers suggests there are 2.2 million deferred pots containing less than £1,000. These pots are difficult to manage and easy to lose. The PPI estimates that the value of lost pension pots has grown from £19.4 billion in 2018 to £26.6 billion last year.
This makes it hard for people to track their total pension savings and, therefore, to plan properly for retirement. Charges for these small pots can erode their value to literally nothing, leading to greater poverty in old age. Managing these small pots can be loss-making for pension companies. It is a lose-lose situation for pension members and pension providers and, overall, it erodes public support for pension saving.
The Government recognise the problem and have taken various steps over the years. They made it possible for pension holders to consolidate pension pots, which is welcome, but it can be fearsomely difficult because of the overwhelming bureaucracy. Later this year, the Government are launching a pensions dashboard. Again, this is welcome, and it will give people a single view of all their pension pots in one place. It will make it easier  for people to see how much they have in savings, and for them to manage those savings. It might even reunite some people with their lost pensions pots. Those are both good initiatives, but neither tackles the problem of multiple pots being created in the first place.
The Government are now looking at further measures to tackle the multiple pot problem. A small pots working group was launched in 2020, and the Government launched a consultation on the issue at the end of January 2023. As the name implies, the working group’s focus is on small pots. Although there is no set definition, a small pot generally contains less than £1,000 and has been inactive for over a year. Small pots are a particular issue for pension providers because there are so many of them and because they lose money, but there is also the issue of multiple larger pots.
The solution chosen by the Government will shape the pension landscape for a generation, so it should benefit both pension members and pension providers. The Government need to make sure that we do not end up with a solution that works well for the pension industry but less well for pensioners.
The consultation launched in January by the Department for Work and Pensions seeks evidence on three proposed solutions to the multiple pots problem, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), is well aware: first, a default consolidator; secondly, a system in which the pot moves with a pension member to a new employer’s scheme; and thirdly, a member exchange. All three solutions have merits, but another policy, which is not being actively considered at the moment, has been adopted by many other countries—the so-called pot for life.
The objective of a pot for life, sometimes known as the lifetime provider model, is that workers have a single pension pot that they can easily manage and know the extent of their savings. Their own pension contributions, and those of their employer, are paid into that pot. Members can remain with the same provider for their whole working life, even when they switch job. They can change provider if they want, but it is their choice. On starting a new job, the employee gives their bank account details so that their salary can be paid, and their pension details so that their pension contributions can be paid. It is a solution that puts engaged pension members, rather than their employer or pension provider, at the centre of the system.
The pot for life is different from the “pot follows member” solution, in which the employer chooses the pension provider, such as their corporate scheme, into which the existing pension pot of new employees is transferred. In the “pot follows member” regime, someone who has 10 jobs over their lifetime will have their pension transferred between 10 providers. This can be expensive and confusing. A person with two part-time jobs will end up with two different pensions, through their two different employers, at the same time.
All this is solved by the single lifetime provider, or single pot, model. Countries from Australia to New Zealand, from Chile to Mexico, have adopted the model. This is clearly a big change from where we are now, and I am not suggesting that we should suddenly go to an automatic lifetime provider for all, which would be impossible practically, but there are many different ways of setting up the lifetime provider model.
What I am proposing is a small legislative change that gives employees the right to opt out of their company pension scheme without losing pension contributions. A new employee would be given the right to direct their own and their employer’s contributions to a provider of their choice, perhaps to an existing fund or to a new one. When they change job, they could make sure their new employer’s contributions go into their own pension pot. The employer’s contributions would be required to be of the same value as the contributions it makes to its existing company scheme, to make sure that employees who opt out are not penalised.
One concern that has been raised is that the proposed model would increase employers’ administrative costs, particularly for small businesses, as they would have to pay contributions to multiple schemes, but I think that argument is overegged. Pretty much all companies now have automatic payroll systems or a payroll service provider that can pay salaries into different bank accounts and pension contributions into different pension funds.
There are concerns about the impact on existing company pensions, but that can be easily mitigated. It is an opt-out system, so the change can be gradual and the effect on existing schemes incremental. After a long time, when the scheme has bedded in, a future Government might decide to make it automatic, as has happened in Australia. The industry may want to set up a platform to process all the different payments.
My proposal is a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, the different proposals that the Government are currently considering. My proposal will not deal with the existing stock of millions of deferred pension pots, which the consolidator model would help to address, and it could exist alongside the “pot follows member” regime. Employees would be given a choice of solutions. If the overall solution is better in the long term for pension members, we should pursue it.
Some in the industry might need educating on the wisdom of this solution, but many in the industry are already supportive. As I came into this place, I received an email from Hargreaves Lansdown, whose permission I have to quote it. It said:
“This is an approach which Hargreaves Lansdown has supported for many years. We believe that it is a vital part of the puzzle to drive up engagement with pensions, especially with so many saving in DC pots.”
Other countries have gone down this route and have had a positive experience. Australia and New Zealand have seen reduced transfer costs in the industry, as pension members do not have multiple pots that need to be consolidated. It has also helped to reduce member  charges, as they do not have multiple pots all accruing their own separate charges. Of course, there are economic, technical and cultural differences between the UK and these countries, but that does not take away from the general principle.
Ultimately, it is my belief that pension savers should be at the heart of our pension system and that the north star of our pension policy should be a pot for life. That means that people know exactly what they have in their pension pot, helping them to make informed decisions about their level of contribution and to plan for their retirement based on this knowledge. Such an approach would help to restore trust in our great pensions system. A solution to multiple pension pots should help engaged pension members while protecting the less well engaged. It should not be skewed by only addressing the providers’ concerns with small pension pots. That is why I want to legislate to require employers to pay into a pension scheme of the employee’s choosing. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Anthony Browne, Damian Green, Richard Fuller, Gareth Bacon, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, Mrs Flick Drummond, Mrs Pauline Latham, Alexander Stafford, Andrew Selous, Selaine Saxby, Douglas Chapman and Wendy Chamberlain present the Bill.
Anthony Browne accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March, and to be printed (Bill 264)

Public Order Bill (Programme) (No.3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Order Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23 May 2022 (Public Order Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 18 October 2022 (Public Order Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 5, 6 to 9, 36, 1, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31 to 33,  2 to 4, 10 to 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 to 26, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 37.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Julie Marson.)
Question agreed to.

Public Order Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
[Relevant documents: First Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Public Order Bill, HC 351, and the Government response, HC 649.]

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that I have selected amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 5.

Clause 9 - Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services

Andrew Lewer: I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 5, and amendment (b) thereto.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 36, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 1, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 17, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 20, 21, 23, 27, 28 and 31 to 33, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 2 to 4, 10 to 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 to 26, 29, 30, 34, 35 and 37.

Andrew Lewer: I have tabled my amendment because the Bill, in its current form, has a problem. The part of the Bill it deals with is leading us into the territory of thought crimes and creates unprecedented interference with the rights to freedom of speech and thought in the UK.

Desmond Swayne: If my hon. Friend were to go on Twitter now, he would find a recording of an arresting officer telling a lady that praying silently is already a crime, and we have not even passed this Bill yet. Are we not really in Orwellian territory of thought crime, as he said?

Andrew Lewer: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, and that is the concern. The part of the Bill I am referring to is Lords amendment 5; put forward in the House of Lords by Baroness Sugg on the matter of “interference” within buffer zones.
I understand that many people will find it highly inappropriate for vocal or difficult protests to be held right outside abortion clinics, and I categorically condemn harassment against women at all points in their life, let  alone near an abortion facility. However, that is a world away from the police being able to detain people and question them over what they are doing if they are merely standing there or praying quietly—or worse, if they are praying silently and are then asked by the police, agents of the state, “What are you thinking about?”

Ian Paisley Jnr: I commend the hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. Does he agree that the Government could do one thing today: they could indicate clearly that this measure does not apply to people engaged in prayer? Secondly, does he agree that if the Government allow this situation to continue, they are going to turn the police into a laughing stock? People will be mocking them, saying, “What about all the knife crime and all the other problems that you have? And you are arresting people for silently praying.” This provision really does make a fool of the police, does it not?

Andrew Lewer: It does cause reputational damage to the police; the videos that some colleagues have seen are hugely disturbing. It makes it difficult for Ministers to stand up and say, “The police are on your side, they will defend you”, when people see a woman who is on her own and standing perfectly still being harassed by the police. I agree entirely with the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made.
So, “What are you thinking?” is covered by the Bill in its current state and remains there despite the Sugg amendment. Action such as I was describing is entirely unacceptable in a free and open society, and I could have my pick of dystopian novels—one has already been referenced—from which it would not be out of place.

Alexander Stafford: No one, in any part of the House, wants women or anyone else to be harassed while going about their lawful business. However, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that legislation is already in place whereby local councils can apply buffer zones around abortion clinics and other such areas when it is necessary to do so? Three or four local authorities have already introduced buffer zones, so this extra amendment is not necessary, because local authorities already have the powers.

Andrew Lewer: Indeed. The Lords amendment extends something that is already disturbing, as we see in some of the video instances that have taken place. These zones would be the only place in the UK where consensual communication is banned by the state—simply saying that sentence makes this seem such an absurdity. To those who say this would never happen, I say that it has indeed already happened. In December, in Birmingham, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was searched, arrested, interrogated and placed on criminal trial for silently praying within one of these zones, and she has now been arrested again.

Eddie Hughes: There is an important detail missing from what my hon. Friend just said, as I understand that when Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested the clinic was not even open. It just seems that if we continue down this line, we are going to extrapolate on an extrapolation in order to make absolutely sure that anybody can be arrested for anything.

Andrew Lewer: That is exactly right, and I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Indeed, the question asked then was, “Are you praying?” When that was answered with, “I might be”, the next question was, “What are you praying about?” That was answered with, “I am praying in my head.” It is extraordinary that that leads to someone being arrested in this country in 2023.
Last month, a father and Army veteran was fined in Bournemouth after being grilled by the police about what he was silently praying in his head. This points the way to a world where freedom from offence, or even potential offence, supersedes freedom of speech and religious belief. We have created, therefore, a situation where we can impose criminal penalties for silent thought, and there will be countless ramifications. For example, it would make it increasingly difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, to advocate for these freedoms abroad. We often have debates in this House where we are all telling the rest of the world what to do and people will turn around and say, “How can you lecture us about religious freedom when there are areas where you cannot even pray in your own country without being arrested and hauled off by the police?”

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend is speaking first in the debate, so I would like to give him an opportunity to anticipate an argument, with which I have considerable sympathy, that we are going to hear urged against him. I refer to the fact that we have seen in other countries, particularly the United States, loud and noisy protests outside abortion clinics and they are what has undoubtedly led to this movement for zones. Will he confirm that if his amendment goes through, it will not, in any way, affect the ability of the law to prevent women from being genuinely harassed when they go to abortion clinics?

Andrew Lewer: That is an extremely important part of this amendment—it makes sure that those protections are very much still in place, as indeed they already are under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Censorship is a notoriously slippery slope. It might not be our thoughts that are being criminalised today, but we should be careful not to open the door to that happening tomorrow to other opinions that people might hold about something else.
The Sugg amendments do provide some welcome scope for an improvement to address some of the concerns that I have mentioned, but issues remain, which is why I have tabled my amendments to Lords amendment 5. Amendment (a) would provide much-needed clarity to the broad and vague terminology of “influencing” currently in the Sugg amendment. My amendments would introduce no substantive changes to the revised clause 10 and, whatever individuals’ opinions of it are, they would therefore respect the desire of both Houses to introduce buffer zones. But I also seek to ensure that any law doing that does not impose an unreasonable limit on freedom of speech and thought, as was seen in the recent prosecution against those engaged—I can still hardly believe I am saying this in the House of Commons—in silent prayer.
My amendment (a) would therefore specify and exempt consensual communication, silent prayer, and peaceful presence from criminalisation. My amendment (b) would pause the implementation of censorship zones until the Government carry out a review into what is really going on outside clinics in the UK, not those in the US or other countries. In 2018, this same Government found that such zones would be “disproportionate” and unnecessary, because the vast majority of activity was peaceful and helpful, instances of harassment were rare and existing legislation was perfectly capable of dealing with any instances of criminality. What has changed? Law must be evidence-based, but the evidential basis for the crackdown has been paltry. I hope my elected colleagues will join me in demanding that our laws are fair, just and considered. It is an abdication of good and standard process that this part of the Bill has made it this far in its current state.
Much of what it is claimed the buffer zones will deal with is already dealt with in law, and more effectively, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

John Hayes: Which is precisely why successive Prime Ministers and Health Secretaries, including the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the view that there was no need for further action, Indeed, they did not see this as a matter for a free vote, which abortion, as a generality, rightly is. This is about freedom: it is not about the purpose of that freedom or the location of it. It is about the ability to think, speak and pray freely.

Andrew Lewer: It is, and that is an important point. This is not a debate about opinions on abortion. Opinions about abortion are varied and differ hugely throughout the House. The 2022 Act already gives the police the power to
“place any condition on a public assembly (that is necessary to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation)”.
That is far more targeted and proportionate. If Members do not feel those powers are sufficient, that is a conversation about altering public space protection orders, not imposing nationwide buffer zones.
Those who do not accept amendment (a) must be able to justify to both themselves and the public why they do not believe that private prayer is a fundamental human right in the United Kingdom. The Bill must absolutely not outlaw our fundamental human rights and I remain far from convinced that, unamended, it will not.

Jon Trickett: May I first seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker? May I speak to the other amendments on the order paper?

Nigel Evans: Please speak only to the amendments that are before us today.

Jon Trickett: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to be clear.
I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), although clearly the ability of people to go about their lawful business at work, including clinicians, administrative assistants and women going to have procedures, must  be protected. I am not convinced that his amendment (a) would achieve an absence of harassment, so I will not support it and the House should not do so either.
I have some sympathy with the points the hon. Gentleman made, however, because the whole Bill is an assault on British liberty. That is the central point, and I will illustrate it in several ways later in my speech. This is an extraordinary Bill. It will hand unprecedented, draconian powers to the repressive arms of the British state, but we have been given only three hours to discuss it. The debate on protecting people going for abortions could take three hours in itself, but we are faced with a series of amendments that were debated in the Lords over days. We have been given three hours, and that is outrageous. Why have the Government provided so little time to discuss these matters, some of which go back a thousand years in English history?
Lords amendment 6 deals with stop and search without suspicion. The police will be granted the power to intercept people who are not even suspected of committing a crime. That is an extraordinary power after more than 1,000 years of the struggle by the British people for a state that protects our liberty. Several of those who spoke in the debate in the other place said that the only comparison they could think of was in the laws that were passed against terrorism. Protesting about injustice is not terrorism, and to conflate the two is a mistake. I have not heard the Government make the case for that, and I will be interested to hear what they have to say. The police have said that they do not want these powers, and previous members of the judiciary in the Lords said that they were concerned about how the Bill could be interpreted.
The Bill as it stands will lead to a further breakdown in confidence between the police and other parts of the state on the one hand, and communities on the other. One example is the Sarah Everard case, where police moved in to prevent what was effectively peaceful and justified protest. That led to a major breakdown in confidence in the Met, although that was already in process because it was a serving police officer who had committed the crime. The police used the covid rules that were then in place, the appropriateness of which had been debated in the House.

Charles Walker: I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I support him in his cause this afternoon, but the arrests in the Sarah Everard case were made because, shamefully, this House had banned the right to protest.

Jon Trickett: That is the point I was just making, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating it.
The police used the covid rules, which had been passed by the House, possibly regrettably. But under this Bill, the police will need no excuse whatever, because the law will allow them to arrest people even if there is no suspicion of any kind. It is quite extraordinary to see a clause in a Bill brought before this British House of Commons proposing that people can be intercepted by the police on no suspicion whatsoever.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Is it not the case that this Bill removes from the police the right to use something that we expect from them: discretion? It removes the ability to use their  discretion and be proportionate. This Bill applies a disproportionate action and forces the police to take that disproportionate action.

Jon Trickett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is right that the British state claimed historically to be the bastion of our liberty, but today it is proposed that it become an engine of our suppression. An authoritarian state is being created here, and it is not acceptable.
When I said earlier that these rights go back centuries, I was not exaggerating. The right to freedom of association—for people to meet with whoever they choose, on the streets or anywhere else—is part of the very structure of our society. The rights of free speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly were built into our constitution for generations and centuries. They will all be fundamentally disrupted by this piece of legislation.
Habeas corpus, the right of individuals not to be intervened on by the state or its apparatuses without good reason, goes back centuries. Protection against arbitrary imprisonment by the state was incorporated in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. The Bill of Rights 1689 went through this House of Commons, and now the House of Commons is being asked to surrender at least part of the principle of habeas corpus, and on no suspicion whatsoever. I add that point one more time, because it is extraordinary that that is what is being said.
It may be said, “Well, in the light of what’s happening in the country, with the protest movements and so on, we need new powers.” Just a minute, though—will the Minister in responding perhaps tell us why a breach of the King’s peace, or the Riot Act 1714, or other items of legislation which have gone through this House and have protected our liberties over the centuries, might not be appropriately used? A breach of the peace is an act of common law going back before the year 1000, to King Alfred—that is how deep the attachment to liberty is in our country, yet it is about to be broken.
The Justices of the Peace Act 1361, preventing riotous and barbaric behaviour that disturbs the peace of the King, also went through this Parliament. Why is it suddenly necessary now, after more than 1,000 years of our history, to empower the state to operate in these ways? We have many other Acts; the Riot Act was read on the steps of the town hall, I think, in my home city of Leeds, against the gas workers who were on strike in the 19th century. In Featherstone in my constituency, the Riot Act was read and people were killed. All they were doing was striking to protect their wages and incomes. How can it be that there is no legislation in place that might deal with the kind of actions we can envisage taking place? Why is it that suddenly, in this century, we are about to abandon 1,000 years of our history? I will come to an explanation in a moment.
I have spoken to Lords amendment 6, but I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 1 and the attempt to define what the Government mean by “serious disruption”. The amendment is now being replaced by the Home Secretary, who is proposing amendment (a) in lieu. The amendment in lieu is quite astonishing. It suggests that anybody may be arrested if they have taken action that might, in more than a minor degree, affect work or supply of goods and services. Subsection (2)(b) of the  Home Secretary’s amendment in lieu refers to the following activities: the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel, communication, places of worship, transport, education and health. It so happens that those are the areas where there is industrial action—where people are taking action to protect their living standards, a right they have had for more than a century.
Why is the list that has been provided to this House in this amendment proposing those particular areas of action? How can minor disruption to services now be regarded as a criminal offence? This will provoke a breakdown in trust between the police force, the state itself and people taking action. I represent a mining community. I went there just over 27 years ago, and during the strike—[Interruption.] Are you trying to say something, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Rosie Winterton: I was just trying to communicate that at some point we need to be aware that there are quite a few speakers. That is all.

Jon Trickett: I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am about to finish on this point.
The definition that the Lords tried to introduce was not perfect but it was far better than the amendment before us. We have a failing political and economic system, and consent has broken down across wide parts of the country. There are two ways of moving forward: either we try to produce a just and more equal society or we move from consent to repression. That is where this Government are taking us, and it is a seriously bad step. This legislation, and certainly the amendments, ought not to go through.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. It will be clear that quite a few hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I would suggest that colleagues keep to about eight minutes to start with. I will not need to put a time limit on if we can think of each other in a comradely fashion—that would be great. I call David Davis.

David Davis: May I start by commending the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett)? I agree very much with what he had to say, but I say to him that, although the laws and the constitution underpinning these matters are, as he said, up to 1,000 years old, much of the tradition of modern demonstrations goes back to the 1930s, when the behaviour of the police towards demonstrators led to the creation of the National Council for Civil Liberties, for example. I know that because my grandfather led more than one demonstration and was arrested—after being baton-charged by the police—for inciting violence. He was sent to prison for six months—although the judge gave him the option of being bound over for six months and not making irritating speeches, and he said he would rather go to prison, so there we are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) made one of the best speeches I have heard in this House for a very long time on something  as fundamental as the right to prayer without intercession by the state. That is an issue that is thousands of years old, and he was absolutely right.
This is problematic. What we are debating is the outcome of an over-heavy-handed Bill—that is where it starts. We were all outraged by the behaviour of some of the demonstrators—disrupting ambulances and Lord knows what else—and the Government reacted to that, but they overreacted, frankly. The Lords have corrected that, and the Government have conceded on a number of important points. They have removed the possibility that a serious disruption prevention order—one of the most restrictive measures we have short of imprisonment—can be imposed on people who have never been convicted.
I say to the Minister that five years after a conviction is a very long time. Most non-violent convictions are spent after one year, so five years is a devil of a long time to allow such restrictions to be put on somebody. The Lords have removed the electronic tagging requirement again. The idea that creating nuisance should lead to someone being tagged is, in my view, a barbaric proposal, and it is gone. An explicit provision that the police cannot use their powers against journalists was carried by about 90 votes in the Lords. That should not even have come up; it is so obvious that that is undermining for us.
The SDPOs are still very restrictive for what are relatively simple offences. They involve bans on using the internet in certain ways, bans on being in certain areas, bans on intended protests, and many other restrictions. They resemble control orders, which—remember—are counter-terrorism measures. That is a crude approach. As I said, five years is too long for the criminal offence to be unspent, so I hope that the Government will look at that again, or, if they do not, that the Lords send it back again.
The organisation Liberty, which, as I said, came into being because of these sorts of problems with demonstrations in the ’30s, has raised concerns about the possibility of political interference, which is really serious. The Secretary of State may issue “guidance about identifying persons” to whom the police should apply an SDPO. In that, we in this House will have no say. That is, again, a critical concern.
The most important thing was raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth: suspicionless stop and search. Stop and search is an abuse of our freedoms, full stop. Being stopped by a policeman and required to strip off, or to empty one’s pockets and bags, is an abuse that we do not allow in this country. Let me be clear: the vast majority of police are responsible, decent and public-spirited people, but the past year has shown that there are also some other people in there. The Sarah Everard offence has been referred to; Couzens was charged with other offences just recently. That demonstrates the danger of handing over unfettered power to people who might abuse it. That is the simple point, and what the state is doing is handing over that power. What we are looking at here—suspicionless stop and search—has to be restricted or eliminated. If we do not do this, we will be in the same position as some states with which we have no sympathy.
Last, I want to reinforce my point with quotations from His Majesty’s inspectorate of police. Inspectors went round 10 police forces asking for their opinions,  and right enough, there was a spectrum, but I want to read out a few sentences from their report. They said:
“At one end of the spectrum, an officer we interviewed described the current legislation”—
that is, the existing legislation, not this Bill—
“as providing ‘an arsenal’ of weapons for the police to use, including many appropriate for use in the context of disruptive protests. Consequently, that interviewee”—
a police officer—
“and many others saw no need for change. Arguing against the proposal for a new stop and search power (Home Office proposal 5) another officer stated that ‘a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state’.”
That is a policeman speaking. His Majesty’s inspectorate said:
“We agree with this sentiment.”
His Majesty’s inspectorate, with all its knowledge—much greater than that in the civil service and the Home Office—think that the proposal is unnecessary and that to keep it is to veer towards a police state. On that basis alone, I say to the Minister, please think again about getting rid of the amendment.

Stuart McDonald: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Our view remains that, despite the best efforts of the other place, the Bill continues to represent a draconian and utterly unjustified attack on protest rights. It is fair to acknowledge that the Government have given some ground, but it is far from enough, so we will vote against a number of the Government’s motions to disagree.
Let me deal first with no-suspicion stop and search, in clause 11. It is horribly ironic that as part of a Bill which the Home Office claims—unconvincingly—is designed to tackle “dangerous and highly disruptive” tactics, the Home Office itself is turning to one of the most dangerous and highly disruptive police tactics: suspicionless stop and search. It is a tactic that achieves next to nothing, yet causes considerable harm, including shocking racial disparities—a fact which I do not think the Government have properly acknowledged during the course of the Bill’s passage.
The profoundly negative impact of stop and search on individuals and on community faith in the police came across loud and clear to me as a member of the Home Affairs Committee when we heard evidence as part of our “The Macpherson Report: Twenty Years On” inquiry. Nobody with reasonable knowledge of the Macpherson report, numerous subsequent inspection reports, or the Home Affairs Committee report could responsibly think that expanding no-suspicion stop and search is a sensible way to go, or the answer to any of our problems. Our Committee report warned of the dangers of such search powers resulting in injustice and undermining the legitimacy that is fundamental to the model of policing by consent. In doing so, we echoed earlier inspectorate reports and the words of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who in 2014 spoke about the huge damage done to the relationship between the police and the public when innocent people are stopped and searched for no good reason.
Similarly, when looking at the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—we will hear from its Chair, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), shortly—objected to these powers. We fully support the Joint Committee’s conclusions on the inherent risk of arbitrary and discriminatory use, and the point that post-exercise accountability is simply not enough. The Committee rightly highlighted that such powers have been used only for really significant and serious offences, such as terrorism or serious violence. Now, the Government want to use them for non-violent activities that are only just now being made criminal offences. The question is: what comes next? It is a very, very slippery slope and a totally inappropriate use of such powers.
The trigger for the powers is also ridiculously low: it could be the possibility that someone somewhere is seriously annoying or inconveniencing somebody else—the public nuisance offence—or that somebody somewhere could lock on to a fence or a gate in a way that is capable of causing more than minor disruption to two people. Suddenly, the whole neighbourhood can be searched in the name of stopping that serious annoyance or the more than minor disruption for two people. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden quoted the police officer who told His Majesty’s inspectorate that
“a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state”.
That is absolutely spot-on. In short, it is a totally ludicrous proposal of dubious consistency with human rights law. It is similarly ludicrous and disproportionate that the penalty will put at risk of imprisonment completely innocent people who simply challenge an officer over an asserted use of a blanket power. That is a dangerous road to go down.
Turning to serious disruption prevention orders, we acknowledge again that the Government have come some way in diluting these highly objectional orders made otherwise than on conviction, but we remain of the view that the whole idea of SDPOs is utterly Kafkaesque and threatens an unjustified infringement on the right to protest of huge numbers of people each and every year. We support the critique provided by Lord Anderson in the other place. It is not long since terrorism prevention and investigation measures were reluctantly introduced, which see significant infringements of a person’s liberty without the use of a criminal court to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. Recently, this House gave cautious support for state threat prevention and investigation measures, but the application of similar ideas, not for the purposes of countering terrorism or espionage, but in the field of protest, is utterly disproportionate and unnecessary. The nature of the SDPO is less defined and lacks similar oversight, limitations or protections compared even with TPIMs or STPIMS, and that is extraordinary. The possibility of a prison sentence for a breach is ridiculous, and the trigger for the imposition of an SDPO is many times lower. Again, the question is: where next? It is a slippery slope indeed. The police do not ask for these powers, and the whole notion should be removed from the Bill.
Finally, we support new clause 1, which seeks to clearly define the meaning of serious disruption and put an appropriate threshold on it. That definition is crucial for a number of other offences and powers. The Government amendment in lieu puts in place so low a  threshold that we would prefer no definition at all. If this Government want serious harm simply to be “more than minor”, that triggers all sorts of crazy and unacceptable consequences. Crimes could be committed simply because two people or an organisation had to face moderate or even moderate to minor disruption. Frankly, it is such a wishy-washy low bar that the Bill would be better off with no definition at all. Our view remains that this whole Bill is rotten, overblown, unwelcome and a dangerous threat to human rights, perhaps a bit like the Government themselves. It is a dreadful attack on rights, and it is also dreadful that the constitution allows it to happen. Anything that waters it down is welcome, but in reality the whole Bill should go altogether.

Charles Walker: I rise in support of Lords amendments 6 and 20 and to urge the Government not to strike them out. I received some excellent briefings, as many hon. and right hon. Members did, from Big Brother Watch and Liberty, supporting the arguments that will be made this afternoon as to why Lords amendments 6 and 20 should be retained, but actually I found an even better briefing in support of those amendments, and it was provided by the Whips Office.
In “Chamber Brief: Public Order Bill”, the Whips make the best argument possible for retaining these two amendments. If I may, I will just quickly read it out. The brief states:
“Lords amendment 6 removes clause 11: power to stop and search without suspicion from the Bill.”
That sounds an outstanding thing to do. It continues:
“This would mean senior police officers would not be able to give an authorisation allowing a constable in uniform to conduct a suspicion-less stop and search of a person or vehicle”.
That sounds excellent. I do not want suspicion-less stop and searches. It sounds extraordinary that anyone in this House would support suspicion-less stop and searches. In fact, I am surprised that the Whips in my party are requesting colleagues to strike out Lords amendment 6 in relation to suspicion-less stop and searches. When I am going about my business, I do not want to be stopped by a police officer and asked about my business. When I say to the police officer, “Why are you stopping me?”, it seems pretty odd that they can say, “I have not really got a reason to stop you, it is just that I can.”
The Whips’ brief, or the Government’s brief passed through the Whips Office, has a wonderful bit of doublespeak at the end of the paragraph. It states:
“Removal of this clause from the Bill reduces the tools available for the police to use when responding to serious disruption and the Government cannot support it”.
The police do not have these tools yet, so how can the amendment reduce the tools available? That does not make any sense at all.
In promoting their position that Lords amendment 20 should be struck out, the Government say:
“Lords amendment 20 removes clause 20: serious disruption prevention orders made otherwise than on conviction entirely from the Bill. This would mean that an order could not be made by a magistrates court on application by a relevant chief officer of police. It is important that the police have the power to seek an order on application, rather than solely at the point of conviction.”
I understand that, when someone is convicted, the police might have a point of view, but to begin placing restrictions on people before they have been convicted of any crime strikes me as somewhat unBritish.

Chris Philp: There is some factual confusion about this, and I am grateful for the opportunity to clear that up. In the other place, the Lords made an amendment to clause 19, which said that the orders could be made without a conviction. The Government accept that amendment—we do not seek to overturn it—and we accept that a conviction is required before an SDPO can be made. Clause 20 is rather misleadingly titled, because it implies that an SDPO can be made without a conviction. If Members read the clause, however, they will see, now that we have accepted the amendment to clause 19, that it applies to circumstances in which there has been a conviction and the police wish to apply to the court for an SDPO at a later date, which will still be after a conviction has been made, so we have conceded the point that my hon. Friend is making. It is rather confusing because the title of clause 20 is a bit confusing, but we have conceded that point.

Charles Walker: I am relieved to hear that.

David Davis: The Minister is quite right—that describes exactly what the Government are doing—but he has left out one thing: the conviction is up to five years before. Usually in British law, convictions are spent after a certain period. Non-violent convictions are all spent after one year, but the conviction for causing a nuisance will last five years.

Charles Walker: We are so lucky to benefit from my right hon. Friend’s wisdom, which has been built up over a 30-year period, and I thank him for making that important point.
I know that you want Members to make brief contributions, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. We are at this point, because we criminalised protest during the covid pandemic, and the Chamber did not push back when the Executive did that. We are paying the price. It is all very well being wise after the event. I have always believed that protest was a right, but I was mistaken because rights cannot be taken away from people. Actually, protest is a freedom, and we discovered that during the covid pandemic, when people up and down the country gathered in small town centres and village squares to protest at the restriction on their freedom, perhaps to earn a living as artists and performers. They were often rounded up by the police and arrested. At the time, many of us warned that once this poison was in the country’s bloodstream it would be difficult to get it out. I am deeply disappointed that the Chamber went missing in action for so long. We allowed the Executive, as I say, to get away with appalling abuses of our unwritten constitution, and we are now paying the price for that. I do not think that we should do that, and I will certainly vote against the Government’s attempts to strike out the Lords amendment.

Rupa Huq: There is lots to consider today. I share the concerns that have been expressed about things like stop and search  and locking in. Those things go too far. I want to concentrate on Lords amendment 5, which would introduce an
“Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services”,
which is a perfectly sensible thing to do. The Lords, particularly the Conservative peer, Baroness Sugg, have done a great job in tackling what are called, rather clunkily in clause 9, buffer zones, and making them into safe access zones. I therefore urge colleagues to support Lords amendment 5 unamended tonight.
Were it not for the actions of anti-choicers, the amendment would not be necessary at all, but something must be done when, every week nationwide, 2,000 women seeking lawful medical treatment find themselves impeded on their way to the clinic door by unwanted individuals. Now, those individuals would not call themselves protesters; they may just be silently holding a sign, lining the pavement with images or holding rosary beads, but given the slogans on those signs, and the ghoulish images of foetuses, and given that the whole intent of all of that is to shame these women, guilt trip them and stop them exercising their bodily rights—

Eddie Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rupa Huq: I don’t want to eat up time. There are a lot of people and I’m in the middle of a sentence, so, no, I will not give way right now.

Eddie Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way at the end of her sentence?

Rupa Huq: I know that the hon. Gentleman is jumping up and down, thinking, “Red light here,” but if he will allow me to develop my point, I will be happy to debate with him.
Okay, these individuals do not call themselves protesters—they are not those angry young radicals—but the whole point of these actions is to deter, to dissuade and to knock off course those women who have made a very difficult decision, and probably the most agonising decision of their lives. We could therefore call it obstruction.
In 2018 in Ealing, my home patch, I went and saw the evidence logs of our Marie Stopes clinic. It was not just women users of the clinic but women practitioners—medical professionals—describing how they had to run a daily gauntlet just to get to work or to have a completely legal procedure.
Five years ago, our council became the first in the country to introduce a public spaces protection order buffer zone, and protest still occurs every day. I heard the catastrophising of the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), but he should come to Ealing and see that it has just moved a set number of metres down the road so that it is not right in front of the clinic gate and women can get in and have their procedure without people in their face and without any kind of influences.
Within that, I include Sister Supporter, a pressure group known for its members’ pink high-vis jackets. Towards the end of 2018, they were accompanying women into the clinic because people felt afraid to go on their own. It is an upsetting enough experience as it is without all these layers on top.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Member give way?

Rupa Huq: Okay, I will give way now.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The issue of “for or against abortion” is really not what we are debating here today, but I want to know, loud and clear, whether the hon. Member believes that, if a person is engaged in silent prayer, that person should be arrested.

Rupa Huq: Well, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a time and a place for everything. Regarding prayer, does it have to take place literally outside the gates of the clinic at the moment that these women, in their hour of need, are seeking their treatment? Is it necessary for it to take place at that place at that moment? I would say that, no, it is not.
We had this argument over the vaccination centres, didn’t we? The anti-vax people would try to deter people from getting in the door. Everyone should be able to seek lawful medical treatment—this procedure has been legal in this country since 1967—without interference. That is what I believe. It is public highway issue as well.
As I say, Sister Supporter, our local campaign group, wishes that it did not have to be there—and it does not, now. The problem is that only three other local authorities have followed that PSPO route, because they have enough on their plate without that onerous process and without the threat of a legal challenge. In Ealing, it has been upheld three times—in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
The other week, the Prime Minister was challenged at that Dispatch Box—I had a question that week as well—by someone raising a case from Birmingham. He said that, yes, we do accept the freedom of thought, conscience and belief, but that, at the same time, there are freedoms of women to seek legal treatment unimpeded and uninterfered with, and we have to balance the two.

Carla Lockhart: Will the hon. Member give way?

Rupa Huq: I want to carry on for a minute, actually.
Some of the tactics that such people employ include live-streaming, filming and uploading to Facebook, despite there sometimes being a violent ex-partner in the background. I do not disagree with praying or informing, as I think people call it, but there is a time and a place for everything. That informing should take place at the GP surgery down the line.
The hon. Member for Northampton South said that the police are being made into a laughing stock, but our police in Ealing welcome the measure because it frees them from patrolling two different groups outside the clinic, so they can fight real crime. There is real crime out there.
Anyone should be able to use medical services without navigating an obstacle course of people trying to impose their view of what is right on the process to dissuade and deter. Even the reviled Iranian regime got rid of its morality police, so why do we allow them here?

Christine Jardine: The hon. Member is making a good and powerful point. Several people have written to me about the Bill with varying views. Does she agree that there is a huge contradiction  in people saying, “We have a right to protest in buffer zones,” yet denying women the freedom of choice for themselves? At that point, it is not protesting but bullying and harassment. That is the difference.

Rupa Huq: I completely agree. These things are always subjective, so someone might say, “I’m just praying. I’ve just got some rosary beads,” but the woman seeking the treatment is traumatised for life. It is often a traumatic experience in the first place.

Hannah Bardell: The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she share my frustration at the number of men who have stood up in this Chamber and pontificated when they will never have to make that choice? They are telling women that they should put up with being harassed when they are just seeking healthcare. [Interruption.] I have heard a number of men in this Chamber shouting down women, but perhaps they should pipe down and listen to our perspectives, because none of them will ever have to go through it.

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is important that we do not personalise the issue. That goes for everybody in the Chamber.

Rupa Huq: I completely accept what the hon. Lady just said. As a woman, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that, if any woman present in the Chamber were walking down a dark alley, they would shudder if someone was there. That feeling is magnified x amount of times for women having that difficult and distressing procedure when people determined to stop them having a termination are in their path. Those people can have their say, but let us move them away from the clinic door.
Buffer zones are not outlandish. They exist in France, Spain, Canada, Australia and some US states. In Ireland, they are legislating on them at the moment. We will be out of step with the rest of the UK, because a Bill is being brought in in Northern Ireland and a private Member’s Bill will become law this year in Scotland.

Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), because His Majesty the King was visiting my constituency today, so I arrived back too late to hear him propose the amendment. It is worth pointing out, however, that both Houses have now voted heavily in favour of the principle of buffer zones. We have to understand the passions behind what is proposed, but it is not really a relevant amendment that advances the argument. In fact, it tries to set the argument back against what both Houses have already decided.

Rupa Huq: The hon. Gentleman and knight of the realm makes a completely incontestable point. When we last voted on it in this place, we voted in favour by almost 3:1. In the other place, the vote was taken on voices, because the support was overwhelming. Hon. Members should not fall for a wrecking amendment; they should reject it.
This is about not the rights and wrongs of abortion—that question was settled in 1967—but the rights of women to go about their lawful daily business. It is not even a religious issue: the Bishop of Manchester in the other place made a barnstorming speech on the day.
As we said after the tragic killing of Sarah Everard, she was only walking home. Women should be allowed to use our pavements unimpeded. We saw the re-sentencing of her killer yesterday, so it all came back, and sadly, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena have been killed since. We cannot stand by, do nothing and say, “This is all okay.” It is obviously not, when 10,000 women a year are affected. Who could argue with safe access? I urge hon. Members to support Lords amendment 5 unamended.

John Hayes: I was elected to this place in a free and fair election, and I come here and say not what I am asked or told to, but what I believe. Similarly, my constituents make representations to me in a free and open way, fearlessly. They sometimes agree with me and they sometimes disagree. Part of the glory of our democracy is that we can exchange views, we can learn from others, and we can disagree openly, fairly and, as I have said, without fear. That would once have been taken as read as a way of describing not just this place and our representative democracy, but the character of a free society in which we are all proud to live.
At least, I could have said that until very recently, but now all is altered. In our universities, women are intimidated simply for saying that sex is a biological fact. Academics are intimidated—sometimes silenced—for championing our history and our heroes. Worst of all—this brings me to the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer)—we now have people arrested for praying. They are interrogated by the police; asked what they are praying about and what they are thinking. As my hon. Friend said, this is dystopia. It is like a mix of Huxley, Philip Dick and Orwell.
It is unthinkable that we should be living in a society where what people think has become a matter of police interest. But more than that, it is not merely a matter of police inquiry, for the lady concerned was arrested, charged and went to court. Of course, in the end she was acquitted, but that is not the point. The very fact that she could be arrested for what she thought or prayed for is—in a much overused word—chilling.

Julian Lewis: Surely the point that we have to be careful about is the use of words—which the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), whom I regard as a personal friend, did use—such as “impede”. Thinking and praying is not impeding. Actually shouting, livestreaming and doing offensive things to people who are going to have a procedure is impeding. If I understand correctly the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), he is talking only about things that do not impede. I think that is right, and that is the only basis on which I could vote for his amendment.

John Hayes: My right hon. Friend will be pleased—but not surprised, given that he knows me so well—to hear that I entirely agree with him. I would not support loud, aggressive protests outside abortion clinics. They do take place in some other countries, but the evidence that they take place in this country is extremely thin. Indeed, a previous Health Secretary conducted a review to establish that fact. If that was in any way likely or  possible, or was made more possible by this amendment, I would not be speaking in support of it, so my right hon. Friend is entirely right. This is about peaceful, silent protests.
In moving this Bill at its inception, the Government rightly said they were doing so because they were against violent disruptive protests. They had in mind people gluing themselves to roads, and stopping ambulances that were rushing to save lives. I support this Bill. I support its objectives because that kind of disruptive and violent protest is incompatible with a free, open and peaceful society. But it is extraordinary that, simultaneously, having said that they were in favour of peaceful protests—the defence being, “We are in favour of an open society, different opinions, the right to put your case by protesting peacefully”—the Government are now failing to support an amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South because the Government refused to table it, to protect people’s right to protest in the very peaceful and indeed silent way that a few weeks ago they were saying they were prepared to defend.

Bernard Jenkin: It is not a matter of interpretation, because it seems to me that this amendment would create exactly the kind of conflict and disruption to public peace that it is intended to avoid? If somebody kneels ostentatiously to pray in front of someone on their way to an abortion clinic, what is that intended to do? This amendment says that
“such communication or prayer shall not, without more, be taken to be—
(a) influencing any person’s decision”,
but why else would somebody kneel down and pray in front of a woman on her way to an abortion clinic unless it was intended to influence that person’s decision? There is a balance to be struck between the rights of people who pray, like my right hon. Friend and me, and the rights of people trying to avail themselves of a perfectly legal service to which they have a right.

John Hayes: I do not know how often my hon. Friend prays—maybe more often than I do, although my need to do so is probably greater—but he must understand that prayer does two things: it sends a message, one hopes, to the Almighty; and it provides solace for the person praying. So the person praying outside the clinic may well be sending a message, but that message is just as likely to be transcendental as to be intended for any individual in proximity.
The idea that we should interrupt the relationship between an individual and their God seems to me to be pretty monstrous, particularly as amendment (a) states specifically that any activity, communication or prayer shall not influence any person’s decision or, more especially, instruct or impede any person. This is not about interfering with another. Rather, it is about expressing a view to oneself, to the Lord and perhaps to others; but that could surely be said of any prayer at any time. Are we going to arrest people in other public places? Once this is allowed and the police are permitted to apprehend people for what they think and what they are praying about, why not arrest them in other public places? Why does this have to apply only to abortion clinics? Once we open this door, why would the police not arrest  people outside mosques or temples, or in any other public space where they are praying to illustrate an opinion—or indeed, as I have said, to express it not horizontally but vertically, to a greater power above us?

Christine Jardine: This is an extremely important point. I do not think anyone in this House wants to restrict anyone’s right to pray, but we are trying to differentiate here and consider the impact of that action on the women who are going in for a very traumatic experience. Many of them will be grieving and many will have been through a traumatic experience to get them to this point, only to then be presented with someone telling them that what they are doing is wrong, increasing that trauma. Regardless of the intention of the person praying, which I would defend forever, the impact on the women is the problem.

John Hayes: But in a free society the impact we make on others by our sentiments, by what we do, say and, indeed, by what we pray about, is the inevitable consequence of the openness that I would have thought all of us in this place would celebrate. In this case, the amendment states specifically that we should not influence or obstruct, but the more general context in which we are having this debate is a world in which the ability to express a view that others might find offensive or unreasonable is being curbed every single day as our freedom is being eroded, and all the things we hold dear put at risk.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Hayes: I will not give way again; I see that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if not yet on your feet, are edging forward in your Chair, and so asking me to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
Freedom is not just about the capacity to hear from others with whom we agree; a free and open society is one in which we hear from those with whom we do not agree. That freedom is at risk. Amendment (a) is most reasonable, and I urge the House to accept it with these final words from the author and statesman John Buchan:
“You think that a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a thread, a sheet of glass.”
Today I will vote against barbarism by voting for this amendment. I mission everyone in this Chamber to exercise their conscience and vote for it with me.

Joanna Cherry: I will confine my comments to the amendments that touch on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair. We did not look at the debate on abortion buffer zones because that was not part of the original Bill, so I will not comment on that. In general terms, some of the points made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) could be carried across. I could very well ask of him why, if that is what he so clearly believes, he would support a power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion? So it cuts both ways.
However, I will confine my comments to support for Lords amendments 1, 6 to 9, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 33, which can basically be grouped into suspicion and stop and search, serious disruption prevention orders,  and the meaning of the phrase “serious disruption”. I will speak to the Joint Committee’s report on our legislative scrutiny of the Bill, which was published on 8 June last year. It was a unanimous report of our cross-party Committee, which of course contains both MPs and peers.
The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, which should be championed and protected rather than stifled. The Joint Committee concluded that while the stated intention behind the Bill was to strengthen police powers to tackle dangerous and highly disruptive protest tactics, its measures went well beyond that to the extent that we feel the Bill poses an unacceptable threat to the fundamental right to engage in peaceful protest. We have heard speeches about the historic basis of that right, and of course it is also protected in modern times under article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which deals with freedom of speech, and article 11, which deals with freedom of association.
In our report, we recommended that the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion should be removed from the Bill. Other hon. Members have spoken about that in some detail. Basically, what we said was that the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion inevitably gives rise to a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory use, and that it is disproportionate and inconsistent with the right to engage in peaceful protest. As we heard from other hon. Members, the police themselves said it is counterproductive and I do not understand that it is a power the police actually want as a whole. Lords amendments 6 to 9 take that out of the Bill, and I think that should be supported by this House.

Chris Philp: I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving way. On a point of clarification, clause 11, prior to amendment by the Lords, states that although an individual does not have to be subject to suspicion before an officer can activate this section, the officer has to “reasonably believe” that a number of offences may be committed. So it is not a wholly unconstrained power to search. That reasonable suspicion in clause 11(1) does have to be engaged.

Joanna Cherry: I am not sure the Minister is right about that. I think what he is trying to say is that the police officer could have a highly subjective view prior to stopping, and a highly subjective view is not a reasonable suspicion. We took all these matters into account in our report.

Stuart McDonald: I think what the Minister is trying to point out is that before the 24-hour period where the suspicionless stop and search can come into force, there has to be a reasonable belief that somebody somewhere in the locality may commit one of these wishy-washy offences. If that happens, then everybody in that locality can be subject to suspicionless stop and search. I am afraid that is just not an adequate answer to the fact that everybody in that locality could be subject to suspicionless stop and search. It is nonsensical.

Joanna Cherry: The Minister must know that we are still bound by the European convention on human rights. Clearly, from what the Home Secretary said earlier this afternoon, some Government Members are  trying to find a pretext to take us out of the convention, but we are still bound by it just now. The Minister must know that in order to interfere with freedom of assembly or freedom of association, under article 11 the interference has to be lawful, necessary and proportionate. What my hon. Friend just described is not lawful, necessary and proportionate.

Chris Philp: rose—

Joanna Cherry: The Minister will get to speak at the end. I do not want to take up too much time as I have already spoken for five minutes and I do not want to upset Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister can take the tenor of the comments so far across the House, including from the Government Benches. People are not happy about the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The cross-party Committee of MPs and peers shared that unhappiness.
We also recommended the removal from the Bill of the power to impose serious disruption prevention disorders. We did so on the basis that they are an unnecessary response to disruptive protest given the host of other powers that the police already have, and because they could result in disproportionate interference and outright bans on the exercise of people’s rights under articles 10 and 11. The Lords amendments on this issue go a long way towards meeting our recommendation, principally by removing from the Bill SDPOs that are imposed otherwise than on conviction, and by removing the power to monitor recipients electronically. We support that. We see the Government’s proposed alternative amendments as pretty minor and do not think they will be sufficient to protect article 10 and 11 rights. We would like SDPOs to go completely from the Bill but we think that the Lords amendments make quite a significant difference, and therefore are worthy of common support.
Finally, on the meaning of “serious disruption” in the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted a lack of any definition of that term, and how that created uncertainty that risks a breach of the rights of those affected by it. We recommended a definition of serious disruption be added to the Bill, which is not dissimilar to that in Lords amendment 1. It is important that any definition of serious disruption should genuinely confine the powers in the Bill to actions causing serious disruption. Anything else would risk disproportionate interference with the right to protest under articles 10 and 11 of the convention. The Government’s proposed amendment in lieu would insert a definition that is not suited to the term that it defines. It does not define serious disruption and it would reduce the threshold to such an extent that almost any disruption in day-to-day activity could justify police action against peaceful protesters. That would not comply with the convention on human rights. I think I will leave it at that.

David Simmonds: I have spoken in favour of this legislation in each of its stages thus far. I would like to continue to express my support for the Bill and the principles behind it, and also place on the record my appreciation for the work that so many colleagues have done. As a relative newbie, it has been a learning experience to hear the expertise  that has been brought to bear to ensure that, as this legislation passes through Parliament, it has become more focused and more able to deliver the intended outcomes.
This morning I visited my constituent Mr Bhalla at his home because, for the second time, his car had been stolen from his driveway. He wanted to express his frustration at having been a victim of a serious and very costly crime for the second time. Often, when we debate in the House we focus on a great deal of the detail, but when constituents have been a victim of crime, we feel a great desire to ensure that Parliament takes advantage of every possible measure. My constituent certainly expressed his view robustly to me—he would like to see suspicionless stop and search for anybody on his road, wherever they might happen to live. He would like the strongest possible measures to be taken.
We need to achieve an appropriate balance between protecting the right to exercise free speech and to protest, on the one hand, and preventing unreasonable disruption to our constituents’ lives on the other. I represent an outer London constituency, and one of my reasons for speaking in favour of the Bill at previous stages was the disruption, frustration and difficulties that have been caused for my constituents while they are trying to go about their normal daily lives.
Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with some protesters, such as those who have been camping out and seeking to disrupt work on HS2, which is causing huge difficulties in my constituency and which many of my constituents continue to oppose. However, I recognise that for the thousands of constituents who travel by car or on public transport and have found that as a result of peaceful but extremely disruptive protests they cannot get to work, attend medical appointments, visit family members or get their children to school, it is clear that the balance needs to be shifted. Their interests, and those of other law-abiding people who are perfectly reasonably exercising their rights and their need to go about their daily business, must be appropriately protected.
It seems to me that greater focus on the definition of serious disruption will make the powers in the Bill more legally effective and enforceable. We have all had experiences of supporting things and then discovering that in the real world they do not work quite as well as we had hoped, so I very much welcome amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1, which will bring such a focus and will ensure that the powers in the Bill work effectively to remedy the impact of serious disruption that is not reasonable, while maintaining free speech.
I also welcome amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 17 on the protection of journalists. We all value the media’s ability to scrutinise the work of the Government and the various arms of the state, as we did during the covid era when it was difficult for this House to do so. It is enormously helpful that we now have greater clarity.
Let us consider what will happen once the Bill has made its way through this House. I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said about the history of the right to peaceful protest. Most importantly, he pointed out that legislation is all interpreted by the courts.
As a magistrate in north-west London, I recall people being brought in who had been stopped and searched and were found to be in possession of bladed articles.  I remember one case of a man who explained to the court that he was a carpet fitter, that the bladed articles were the tools he needed to fit carpets, and that he travelled around on public transport to appointments to fit them at various locations. He provided appropriate evidence to demonstrate it, so the court acquitted him. In other cases involving similar offences, it was clear that the individuals concerned were seeking to do harm to others, perhaps in connection with drug dealing, so the court took a different view. It is always valuable to remember that interpretation and enforcement will be down to juries of our peers, to magistrates or to judges. We have learned to place a great deal of faith in our judicial system’s ability to interpret “reasonableness” in a way that reflects the expectations and aspirations of all our constituents.
Finally, I join several colleagues in expressing my continuing support for Lords amendment 5 on buffer zones. I think it right that the House should agree to it. I have listened carefully to the views of many colleagues, and I understand the need to ensure that those of a religious faith have the freedom to express their views. None the less, access to medical and clinical services should be available to all our constituents without undue disruption. It seems to me that their lordships have done a good job of refining what we mean in the drafting of the Bill. This House would be wise to welcome the amendment; I shall certainly vote in support.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I commend the way in which the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) spoke to the amendments; I think that he served the House extremely well.
Let me begin by saying that I am opposed to harassment. I think it intolerable for a woman to feel that she is being harassed, and indeed for a man to feel that he is being harassed. We were given a demonstration of harassment in the Chamber earlier today when a female Member came in, told male Members to “pipe down” because essentially this was none of their business, and then beetled out. That is harassment according to any definition of it, and it is wrong and should be called out as such. This is a good debate, and it is important for us to have it. Debate is what the Chamber is for, and we should not be afraid of combative ideas, but telling Members to pipe down just because they are male is not an argument that should be entertained in this place. So harassment should be called out, and we should not be afraid of doing that.
I object to, for instance, the harassment of women who go into abortion clinics if that is their free choice and they wish to do it. I am not advocating that in any way, but harassment cuts both ways. It is important that those who wish to pray, to express their identity or to make points that are fair in a non-combative way should be encouraged to do so. A Home Office review published in 2018 found that many protesters in the UK—it identified some of the places involved—were simply praying, sometimes displaying banners and sometimes distributing literature. Is the proportionate response to that introducing a law that essentially says, “You cannot pray silently in public”? That seems to be what the Government are saying today.

Ashley Dalton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I will make this point, and then I will give way.
We are all aware of the Bible story about Daniel daring to pray and being put in jail—

Chris Philp: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: Of course I will give way to the Minister.

Chris Philp: The Government are not saying anything about this matter. It is a free vote, and there is no Government position on the “buffer zone” amendment.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I look forward to the Minister joining me in the Lobby this evening.
Whenever we walk into the Palace of Westminster, we walk beneath a massive portrait of Moses by Benjamin West. We walk through St Stephen’s Hall, and what is St Stephen’s Hall? It is a church. We walk over the catacombs under which is another church. We come to this place—to the “mother of Parliaments”—and debate a piece of legislation that essentially says, “If you dare to pray in a certain part of this Christian nation, in silence, you will be arrested.”

Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ashley Dalton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I want to make this point. I will give way later.
I think that Members need to stop and seriously ask themselves whether that is the sort of law that they wish to pass. The Government have an opportunity here. Is the Minister willing to say—perhaps he will want to intervene at this point—that the Government would exclude silent prayer from the Bill as an indication that the liberty of freedom of thought, of the freedom to have an opinion in one’s head, will be allowed? That would be the moderate thing for them to do.
Freedom of thought is a right enshrined in article 9 of the European convention on human rights and in article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, while freedom of opinion is enshrined in article 10 of the convention. These are international rights which we should all support and defend to the very end, because they are about our right to think, to express ourselves and to maintain an opinion that we hold dear. Even if it is an objectionable opinion—even if a person does not believe in the God to whom we are praying—we are entitled to have that opinion, and to prevent that in any way is to remove a legitimate right. However, we have heard a justification in the House, and I really had to pinch myself when I heard it. The justification was that we should limit our thought and limit our opinion.

Ashley Dalton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am going to make this point. I promise I will give way after that.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) stated very clearly that praying was not proper in certain places. The hon. Member is entitled to that opinion, but where is not the proper place to pray? Is here not the proper place to pray—will that be the next argument? Where ultimately is not the proper place to pray?

Ashley Dalton: I would like the hon. Member to help me understand why it is particularly important that prayer must be carried out openly, publicly and ostentatiously. Most often, if we pray, no one else will know that we are doing it. He briefly referred to the Bible and to Daniel in the lion’s den. I draw his attention to Matthew, chapter 6, verses 5 and 6:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others…But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.”
Is it not possible to do that privately, without intimidating others by doing it ostentatiously and publicly?

Ian Paisley Jnr: The gospel of Matthew is a wonderful gospel—as a son of the manse, I know a little bit about this—but the reference I made was to Daniel, who was praying privately in his home. I did not talk about ostentatious public prayer. Maybe the Member should have used their ears and listened to the point that I made, which was about silent prayer and about freedom of thought in someone’s head, not freedom of outward expression. If the Member had listened, she would have got the answer to her point.
Despite the level of crime across this society—I think there were over 500 knife crimes last year—are we actually going to ask the police to get engaged and be detained in questioning people about what they are thinking in certain parts of the United Kingdom? That is a complete waste of police resources and police time, and it should not be done. When hon. Members stand up in this House and demand more police action in the future, it should be pointed out to them that constraining the police in this way and saying that they must chase after people who are silently thinking things, silently worshipping or silently praying is a total waste of police resources.
In Northern Ireland we have brought in a safe access zone law. I do not like that law—it was brought in by the Northern Ireland Assembly while I was a Member of this House—but it states that there must not be an unnecessary or disproportionate response from the police. Unfortunately, what we are doing in this House is bringing in disproportionate actions by the police when we should be moving away from them. Northern Ireland’s law gives the police at the right to use discretion and take steps to calm a protest, as opposed to stopping a protest. It also says that the Department of Health must maintain and regularly publish a list of all potential premises where the clinics could be taking place, so that people are aware of where they are so that they cannot, for example, be caught out wearing a T-shirt or a badge, or driving a car with a bumper sticker on it, in an area where it might give someone offence.

Eddie Hughes: The point that the hon. Gentleman has just made is incredibly important. In the circumstances that I was talking about previously, the lady was arrested in Birmingham and the police arrive to interrogate and subsequently arrest her. Given the other crimes that were going on in Birmingham at that time, it is important to see that the police had clearly determined that the most important thing they had to do at that particular time was not to deal with knife crime or with people stealing tools out of other people’s vans to stop them earning a living, but to arrest and interrogate a woman  who was silently praying outside a clinic that was closed. Surely that shows a sense of complete disproportionality on the part of the police.

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is important that interventions are short, and I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will want to come to the conclusion of his remarks now, as he has been speaking for 10 minutes.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I will conclude now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I agree with the point that the hon. Member has made. The arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was atrocious. It sends out a terrible message to women and to anyone who wishes to engage in silent prayer in this nation. I am glad that that attempt at a conviction was overturned by the court and thrown out. It is unfortunate that she has been arrested again today by another police officer saying, “What are you thinking? What are you praying?” That is wrong, and we need to stand up against that sort of harassment.

Danny Kruger: I rise to speak to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5.
I recognise that there is a genuine problem that the Bill and the Lords amendments seek to address, of harassment, intimidation and offensive behaviour directed at women going into abortion clinics. I recognise that this requires policing and that it is appropriate for the authorities to stop harassment and intimidation. This House and the other place have decided that additional legislation, on top of what is already on the statute book, is required to enable that additional policing. All the arguments made by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has campaigned so hard on this issue for so long, have been accepted by the House, and I do not think there is any particular value in unpicking her arguments. That debate has been had.
The question now before us, and the purpose of amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5, is about what is to happen in these safe access zones, as they are now to be called. I recognise that is the intention behind the Lords amendment, and the intention behind the original clause, but my concern is that, in asserting a general principle of something we do not want, and couching that desire in very broad terms, we are taking a momentous step. We are crossing an enormous river. The Rubicon was actually a very small stream, but it was a momentous step. When we criminalise prayer, private thought or, indeed, consensual conversations between two adults, we are doing something of enormous significance in our country and our democracy.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, but my concern is about the motivation for a person to silently pray there. What motivation do they have other than to be seen by a woman who is at her lowest ebb? It is not the best day of her life. In fact, it will be one of the worst days of her life.

Danny Kruger: I recognise that, but the difficulty is that none of us can know their motivation. I can accept that my hon. Friend’s judgment is that the motivation is pretty malign. The prayer might be well intentioned, but the attempt to dissuade a lady from accessing an abortion clinic is genuine. There is no doubt that is what  is happening. My concern is about the principle of this law, how it will be applied and the precedent it sets in our democracy.
My concern is that the Bill authorises the police to ask exactly the question raised by my hon. Friend. It authorises them to go up to a private citizen standing on a street corner, not overtly harassing anyone, and to ask the question that the police asked the lady in Birmingham, “What are you praying about? What is in your head at this time?” They could see that she was not doing anything offensive, but they concluded that she was probably thinking something of which they disapproved, so they took steps to arrest her. I think we are taking a very concerning step as a country in authorising the police to act in that way.

Bernard Jenkin: I utterly respect the sincerity with which amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 was moved and why my hon. Friend is supporting it. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is against harassment, but that is the point of amendment (a). It does not say that any person engaged in consensual communication or silent prayer shall avoid harassment; it says that it shall not be taken as harassment. However ostentatiously someone is praying, or however aggressively they are seeking to open consensual communication with an individual going to a clinic, it shall not be taken to be harassment. It is a blank cheque for a person to behave in a harassing way, because they can defend themselves by saying, “Oh, but it says here that what I was doing shall not be taken as harassment.”

Danny Kruger: The behaviour that will not be taken as harassment is private prayer. Other actions that may be taken—obstructing a person walking down the street was what my hon. Friend suggested earlier—will be in scope. What should not be in scope is a person thinking something in their head. That is the only defence on which we are trying to insist, and I invite Members to consider whether they want to pass a law that will ban people from thinking something. Other forms of harassment or obstruction will be in scope of the law. So I do not think the intention is to stop people praying—I do not think that is what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, the Government or indeed any of us want to do. We need to send a clear signal of the intention of Parliament through this amendment, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for tabling it. I ask Members to consider that if they vote against it, they are voting to ban private prayer. Of course it is a special case and we are talking about tiny zones, and of course we can all sympathise with the intention of the clause, but the point is the principle of this—

Stella Creasy: When we legislate, being specific matters. So let us be clear: the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton South is not about private prayer, but about “silent prayer”. Silent prayer can be done in somebody’s face, can it not, whether or not what the person praying is thinking is private in their head? That shows the challenge here. This is not actually about prayer; it is about where it is taking place. So will the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that he has no problem with recognising that somebody praying in another person’s face, silent or not, is unwelcome?

Danny Kruger: The difficulty is with the private prayer—the silent prayer; that is what we are trying to protect. If the person is standing offensively in somebody’s face and trying to obstruct their access, of course they will come within scope. We are trying to protect people such as the lady who was standing quietly at the side, praying to herself, as far as we know. She might have been thinking about her shopping, but that was what the police were interested in; she was asked, “What are you doing standing over here quietly?”.
I am afraid to say that there was always going to be difficulty with this new law, because the police are going to be required to make all sorts of strange interpretations and judgments about why somebody is doing something. Nevertheless, in passing a law to create these zones we must consider people who are doing this utterly inoffensive thing, standing quietly at the side praying.

Rupa Huq: Let me just give the hon. Gentleman the example of Ealing, where we have had our zone since 2018—this is now its sixth year. Only three breaches have occurred and none has resulted in a conviction, because these people are usually law-abiding. Only one came close—I think it is still being legislated on and is probably sub judice—because it was done as a stunt. In reality, these things do not occur. People can pray elsewhere, and every royal medical college, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as the British Medical Association and all medical opinion support this measure.

Danny Kruger: Okay, well, I will wind up now, because I think the point has been well rehearsed. My concern is with the principle we are setting here. Of course, everyone must have sympathy with these women, and we need to protect them from harassment, but where does this lead and what we are doing by saying that people should not be allowed to pray quietly on their own?

Wendy Chamberlain: Policing by consent is central to how our criminal justice system works in the UK and the authority by which officers wield the power given to them. That is why this issue is challenging and why we are having this debate. It is seen as being about balancing the rights of protest in this situation with other rights to go about everyday legitimate business. It is important to take a balanced and sensitive approach.
Several legal minds here are much greater than mine. I am not a qualified lawyer, but I am standing here as the only former police officer participating in this debate. I know who the other two former police officers are and they are not here. I have approached this debate, these clauses and the Lords amendments by thinking about what would happen if I, as a police officer, went to attend a “spontaneous protest”, meaning that as a constable, the first person there, it would be on me to make the decisions about what was legitimate or not and about how I carried out my duties. I also thought about what would happen if I was part of a team of police officers policing a bigger protest, and about the instructions that I would be given by the silver and bronze commanders in relation to that protest and how they would tell me how to interpret the law.
I found it interesting when the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, who is no longer in his place, intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South  West (Joanna Cherry) to say that he would explain that this is confusing. Police officers are dealing with an ambiguity in the moment all the time. If we create legislation in this place that is confusing and if we have not provided clarity, it is not surprising that police officers will be found not to be applying the law correctly.
Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is also no longer in his place, talked about the interviews that His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue undertook with police officers. I cannot totally repeat what the former silver public order commander to whom I am married called this Bill, but I can say that it was a pile of something. I will leave Members to speculate on what else he said. These are complex decisions to be made in real time, regardless of rank. Policing by consent is how we ensure that we carry out our duties safely.
Others have spoken about Lords amendment 5. It is not applicable in Scotland, and I look forward to similar legislation by means of a private Member’s Bill. It is important that it is now perceived to be ECHR compliant. My party will not be whipped on the amendment, so it will be down to personal preference, but if as a police officer I was dealing with, for example, a case of harassment in which the allegation was racial in nature, I would listen to the victim in relation to how I applied the legislation and whether I would press for a charge. The tendency is towards how the victim or the person subject to the behaviour feels. If it is silent prayer that takes place outside an abortion clinic and women going into the clinic interpret it as harassing, that suggests to me that an offence has been committed and action needs to be taken.
On Lords amendment 1, the serious disruption definition is clear and, I would argue, more easily determined by a police officer in the course of their duties. Arguably, the Government’s version of “more than minor” is more subjective and therefore more difficult for an officer to gauge. We are back to the skills, knowledge and behaviour of police officers and their capacity to deliver. My concern, as I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, including in Committee, is that we have put so much pressure and expectation on what we require police officers to do and this Bill will add another whole wheen—that is a Scottish word that means a load—of elements that they will require training to deliver. I continue to have concerns about the capacity to deliver that training and the ability to extract police officers to undergo that training so that they can implement the Bill. That is very problematic, and that is before we even come on to the issues of the erosion of trust that we have seen in the police service more generally in the past year.
On Lords amendment 6 and suspicionless stop and search, I will quote the words of Lord Paddick in the other place. He has handled with this Bill on behalf of the Liberal Democrats since Second Reading, and my colleagues and I are hugely grateful to him. He is a former Met commander and he knows what he is talking about. He said:
“Stop and search is a highly intrusive and potentially damaging tool if misused by the police. The fact that you are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police if you are black than if you are white where the police require reasonable suspicion, and 14 times more likely where the police do not  require reasonable suspicion, presents a prima facie case that the police are misusing these powers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2023; Vol. 827, c. 1098.]
I understand that the House will not divide on Lords amendment 17, but it follows the arrest of journalists in Hertfordshire at a Just Stop Oil protest. If there is no need for the amendment, I would like to hear the Government outline what they will do to prevent the arrest of legitimate journalists and observers at protests in future. If we all care about democracy and freedom to protest and ensuring that those rights are applied, we need to have journalists and observers involved.

Chris Philp: The Government accept that protection for journalists might helpfully be set out, and that is why Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 17 will substantively do what the Lords request, albeit in slightly different language.

Wendy Chamberlain: I am pleased to hear that.
If Lords amendment 1 is disagreed to and Government amendment (a) to it is passed, I would disagree with the broadening of the definition of “serious disruption”. Whatever the Government may think of protesters, they are not terrorists, and applying similar legislation where no offence is committed is simply wrong.

Chris Philp: As I said in my earlier intervention, the Government have accepted that serious disruption prevention orders can only be handed out by a court, following a conviction. The title of clause 20 is somewhat confusing, but we have accepted the point that there must be a conviction first.

Wendy Chamberlain: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but the point I made while he was not in his place still stands: this is confusing. We are presenting confusing legislation to police officers to apply and potentially to take away people’s liberty accordingly.
Policing needs to be done with consent. This is knee-jerk legislation, as I have said throughout, to replace powers that already exist and that the police say they can utilise now. It also prevents the important discussions that take place between protest groups and police officers; we are going to create a chilling effect not only on the right to protest, but on the relationships that help us to enable legitimate protest. I think that is why the Lords rejected these clauses outright in their previous guise in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Lords have attempted to ameliorate the worst excesses of this Bill, and I will certainly vote in support of keeping the Lords amendments in place.

Nicholas Fletcher: I rise to speak to Lords amendment 5 and the amendments to it put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer).
Buffer zones are basically public spaces protection orders, extending a distance of 150 m. PSPOs, as they are called, are generally used for antisocial behaviour. We have three in Doncaster, apparently, and I have personally applied for one in Conisbrough in my constituency. We have a set of seating in the middle of town where we have people under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and beggars, and they make a nuisance of themselves with antisocial behaviour. They are killing the town centre. I have been refused a PSPO there, but I will continue, because I think it is the right thing to do.
Lords amendment 5 will put a mandatory buffer zone, a PSPO, around every single clinic in the country. Regardless of what we think about that, I want to tell people in this House and in my constituency what that will look like. The drunks and the people under the influence of drugs in Conisbrough are going to continue to be able to make a nuisance of themselves, damage the local economy and scare old and young people who want to go to the shops; yet a lady or a gentleman who has a real strong faith and believes they can help the people coming in to a clinic is not going to be able to do that.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about people praying and standing in front of people, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) asked why they have to do it there. Well, if that is the worst day of a woman’s life, and I accept that it probably is one of the worst days of a woman’s life, if she saw somebody there who was praying respectfully, who was there to help, and she knew they were there, she could ignore that lady or gentleman who was praying and just walk in—but, if it was the worst day of her life, she might want somebody just to turn to for that second. Also, if somebody is being coerced into going into one of those places to have a forced abortion, that lady or gentleman could be somebody who is there to help.
I agree with everybody else in this House that shouting, screaming and holding up placards is an awful thing to do and should not happen, but silent prayer and consensual conversations should not be banned. The papers will get hold of this in a year’s time: we are the party of law and order, but we will be arresting people for prayer and for conversations, while letting the people who are harassing the public in our towns and our shops continue to do so.
I ask all Conservative Members in this House to think about amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South has put forward. It simply asks for people to be allowed to pray and to have those consensual conversations. Amendment (b) provides that, before we put this law in place, we carry out a review on it. That is what I am asking for.

Stella Creasy: I have immense respect for many people who have spoken in the debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is no longer in his place. He and I might be in different political parties, but on issues of civil liberties, we often find common cause. I am not sure that my 15-year-old self would have thought that possible, but it is certainly true—for example, we are working, as Back-Bench Members of Parliament, to raise concerns about the restrictions on parliamentary sovereignty in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.
I have been very struck by the debate, which I believe crosses party political lines. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who I knew as the hon. Member for Colchester back when I was that 15-year-old who could not conceive of points on which I might find common ground with Government Members. But there are such points, and this—speaking up for freedoms—is one.
I am very struck that the concept of freedom that has been articulated in the Chamber so far is a myopic one. That myopic freedom comes from a blind spot that I believe most of the Members in this Chamber must recognise when talking about access to abortion, which is exactly what we are talking about. By definition of who they are, they will never have been in the position of the women for whom those buffer zones make a difference, so their experience of the human rights at stake in the legislation, and of the issues that we face, is inevitably tempered by their own understanding, in which they focus on the idea that this is purely an issue of freedom of speech and fail to recognise that other, much-cherished right in this country: the right to privacy. My remarks will be very much about that and about how we cannot be a free society if women, just as much as men, are not able to exercise those rights equally.
I am very taken by the fact that it is International Women’s Day tomorrow. I have to say that I have become increasingly cynical about that day. It deflates me. We spend a year talking about how we are going to celebrate women, but precious little time working on advancing their rights. Well, I see Lords amendment 5 and opposition to amendment (a) as being about advancing women’s rights and doing what the suffragettes told us to do: “Deeds, not words”. Why do I see that? I see that because I think we must start by clarifying some of the myths that have been presented to the Chamber.
I listened respectfully to the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) because this is the time and place for him to exercise that most important democratic right of freedom of speech. I have listened to many speakers talk about how we are somehow criminalising prayer. Let us be very clear for the avoidance of doubt: no prayer is being criminalised. Nothing in the Bill will do that, except, perhaps, for a gardener who is carrying a spade because they are praying that their carrots or green-sprouting broccoli will grow but who is stopped by the police—as clause 2 will allow—who argue that the gardener’s intent in carrying the spade is to dig a tunnel. The gardener’s prayer for the vegetables is secondary when they explain to the police why they were carrying a spade.
Let us be very clear: nothing in Lords amendment 5 criminalises prayer. It says what most people would recognise: that there is a time and a place for everything and a balance in those rights—in the freedom of speech to tell a woman that you do not think she has a right to make a choice over her own body, and her right to privacy. When she has made her choice, she should not be impeded.
Let us be honest about this: the people praying outside abortion clinics are not finding the right time and place for it. That is not just what I think; it is what the vast majority of the British public think because they recognise that when a woman has made that choice, she should not face someone trying to change her mind right up to the wire. She should be respected for her choice.

John Hayes: rose—

Stella Creasy: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene with some rhetorical flourish about the purpose of freedom in this place. What about the freedom of a woman to make her choice in peace?  That is what the Lords amendment does. I will happily give way because I am sure that he wants to come in on that point.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady has provoked me to intervene and to be rhetorical as well, but I simply say this to her. She suggests that someone could be impeded by silence. Given that that is entirely irrational, will she answer this question: does she support the arrest and charging of a woman, as has happened? Does she endorse that, and does she want to see more of it?

Stella Creasy: It is an irony to me that Members of the party that once claimed to be the party of law and order are trying to argue against the law and order that a PSPO establishes.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear that I am not arguing for the criminalisation of silence. My argument is about the location. The right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous if he does not recognise the effect of somebody who disagrees so passionately with a woman’s right to privacy in making that choice standing there while she does it. He talked about some of the literary greats, so let us talk about Margaret Atwood and “Under His Eye.” That is what these people praying represent by being there at that most tender moment for a woman making that choice. It is their physical presence, not their praying, that is the issue.
If we respect people having different opinions on abortion when it comes to free speech, we also have respect that when someone has made that choice, they should not be repeatedly challenged for it. The Members who want to challenge those women by praying outside and supporting others who do so have no idea why those women are attending the clinics; they have no idea of the histories and stories. They can only listen to the countless testimonies that the women attending the clinics do find this harassing. That is why so many have called for the PSPOs. They do find it intimidating. That is not the right time and place.
In tabling the amendment, the hon. Member for Northampton South is attempting to complicate something that is very simple. I pay tribute to Baroness Sugg for tidying up our original amendment and clarifying where the 150-metre zone will be. In a very small zone around an abortion clinic, that is not the right time and place. People can pray—of course they can. Although I might disagree with the hon. Gentleman on whether that is still intimidating, I will defend to the hilt people’s right to pray. What I will not do is place that ahead of a woman’s right to privacy and say that a woman who has made the decision to have an abortion must continue to face these people, because somehow it is about their freedom of speech unencumbered.
We need to be honest and recognise that there will never be a point at which the people praying agree with the choice that a woman has made, so there is never going to be a point at which their prayers are welcome. There is never going to be a point at which those prayers are not designed to intimidate or to destabilise a very difficult decision. Look at the widespread evidence that shows that the people conducting these prayer marathons outside our abortion clinics are not acting simply to help women, and that they are not well intentioned. I think we can all make our own decision on what is well intentioned. The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)  says it is not offensive, but I disagree. I think that when a woman has made a choice, to have someone try continually to undermine that choice is offensive. We both have a right in this place to make our argument. Where we do not have a right to make that argument is right outside an abortion clinic with a woman who just needs her right to privacy to be upheld.
The hon. Member for Northampton South talked about consensual contact, but that is very unclear. What if a protester walks up to a woman and asks her the time, and she tells them? Does that mean she has engaged in conversation with them, which will allow them to start talking to her about their views on abortion? What if they ask for directions? Will that undermine the provision? The people protesting outside clinics, especially the “40 Days for Life” people, boast about how their presence reduces the number of women having abortions. They say it makes the no-show rate for abortion appointments as high as 75%. This is not benign behaviour. They also claim that those of us who support a woman’s right to choose are “demonic”, and increasingly they suggest we are “satanic” in our support for a woman’s right to privacy. Let us be clear: amendment (a) would not make an abortion clinic buffer zone clearer; it would sabotage a buffer zone by introducing uncertainty about behaviour and about the simple concept of there being a right time and place.
I am conscious of the time available, so I just want to put on the record my gratitude not only to Baroness Sugg, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for all her work, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, and organisations like Sister Supporter. They have stood up for the silent majority—the people who think it is not right to hassle a woman when she is making these choices. That is ultimately what we are here to say. When the vast majority of the public support buffer zones, and when those of us who will be in this position cannot speak freely, as a Scottish colleague raised, then we have a challenge in this place. Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech if 50% are living in fear of what might happen next. Margaret Atwood taught us that. She said that men are worried that women will laugh at them, and women are worried that men might kill them. Do not kill a woman’s right to her freedom. Do not kill a woman’s right to privacy. Let us not sabotage at the last minute abortion buffer zones by supporting amendment (a). We should support Lords amendment 5 and let everybody else move on with their life.

Edward Leigh: It is worth looking at what amendment (a) states. It states:
“No offence is committed under subsection (1) by a person engaged in consensual communication or in silent prayer”.
For the avoidance of doubt, amendment (a) goes on to say that nothing in it should allow people to be harassed or their decision to be changed, such as kneeling down and praying right in front of somebody’s face, or blocking the pavement, or indulging in any kind of harassing.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Edward Leigh: I am not going to give way to my hon. Friend, who has intervened many times already. I have been asked to speak very briefly.
It is worth looking at what this amendment is, and it is worth considering the question put by the police officer to the lady. The police officer asked her, “Are you praying?” In other words, there was nothing she was obviously doing that was harassment or in any way objectionable. The police officer had to actually go into her mind—she was just standing there; I do not think it is even clear that she was kneeling—and that is surely what is dangerous about the measure.
In speaking to this Chamber, I am going far beyond what that lady was doing. Of course I am not indulging in any objectionable behaviour by expressing my thoughts. I am not harassing anybody, but everybody in this Chamber in a sense is being forced to listen to me, and I have spent 39 years no doubt irritating people and even boring them. They cannot shut their ears, but this lady was not actually saying anything, and the policeman had to go up to her and ask what she was doing. If we are going to have a law—a criminal law—it has to be capable of being effective.
The reason George Orwell’s novel “1984” resonates so much with all of us is that the state was trying to regulate not just people’s actions but what goes on in their minds. That is why, ever since that novel was written, people have felt that probably the most advanced form of totalitarianism is one where the state is trying to regulate not simply people’s behaviour, but their minds. What the debate is about is that those who oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) are determined to stop anybody indulging in any kind of protest, if it could be deemed to be some sort of protest, even if it is entirely silent.
The whole point of the Public Order Bill, as I understand it—this is why I support it—is that it does not outlaw peaceful protest. What the Government are addressing is people making that protest who are deliberately trying to obstruct the rights of other citizens by blocking roads or whatever. That is the point of the Bill. It has now been hijacked by people who want to stop completely silent peaceful protest.
The case of Livia Tossici-Bolt has not yet been mentioned. In the past few days she was told by council officers in Bournemouth that she would be fined simply for holding up a sign saying, “Here to talk if you want” inside a buffer zone. She was not holding up a sign with any graphic images, and she was not trying to intimidate anybody; she was simply saying, “Please, if you want to talk, I am here if you want any advice. This is a very difficult day for you.” For that she was stopped by the police. In other words, that lady was told that she could not offer other women who might, in some circumstances, be coerced into attending an abortion clinic, or who felt that they lacked the resources to complete a pregnancy, the opportunity to talk if they wanted to do so.
We must not criminalise such peaceful activity. Where are we going? Where will this stop? I believe—this is how I will conclude; I think that this is the shortest speech—that this is an entirely worthwhile, harmless, moderate amendment, and I hope that Members will support it.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I remain of the view that the Bill is draconian and anti-democratic, and represents a frightening lurch towards authoritarianism. Whether or not Members agree with me, most of us will   accept that the concept of what constitutes serious disruption is central to the sweeping liberty-curtailing powers and offences that it contains.
The matter of protest banning orders rests on that definition, and the peaceful and often innocent conduct that the police would seemingly be able to criminalise as a result is breath-taking in its range. The Bill says that those orders can apply to people without a conviction—the Minister explained the Government amendment earlier—if someone has carried out activities or contributed to the carrying-out of activities by any other person related to a protest
“that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption”,
among a range of other scenarios, on two or more occasions. Justice has stated:
“Given the extent of the powers contained within the Bill, it is essential that any definition should be placed at such a threshold as to minimise the possibility for abuse.”
I agree. The term “serious disruption” should be defined. Despite requests even from senior police officers for clarity in the Bill’s early stages, the Government had to be dragged to this point today. Looking at the Government’s vast and vague amendment on this issue, the reasons for not defining the term in the first place are clear. It would appear that their intention was always to set the bar at a frighteningly low level—and the bar could not be lower.
Serious disruption is “more than a minor” hindrance. That is a paradox if ever there was one. Apart from being dangerously vague, “more than a minor” hindrance is not serious disruption by any stretch of the imagination. More than a minor hindrance, as suggested by the Government, is having to cross to the other side of the road because someone is protesting on the pavement. It is a Deliveroo takeaway arriving 15 minutes later than someone would like. Those things might be annoying, but they are not serious disruption and they certainly do not warrant arrest.
I want to set this in context, as the Lords have attempted to do. The comparison in English common law is the definition of civil nuisance, which involves “substantial interference”. That is a very high bar, which has been defined by decades of case law on the matter. It is a world away from the low threshold that the Government propose in this measure.
I should make it clear that on the issue of blocking emergency vehicles—the Minister might try to cite that as a reason for the Government’s vague and dangerous amendment—of course that should be an offence, but it already is. The Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 contains two offences. First, the Act makes it an offence to obstruct or hinder certain emergency workers who are responding to emergency circumstances. Secondly, it makes it an offence to hinder or obstruct those who are assisting emergency workers responding to emergency circumstances. The Lords amendment provides a much more sensible definition of serious disruption. It states that serious disruption
“means causing significant harm to persons, organisations or the life of the community, in particular, where…it may result in significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product…or…it may result in a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential services”.
That complements “significant delay” in the delivery of goods and “prolonged disruption” of access to services, as set out in the Public Order Act 1986, as well as measures in the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act.
On stop and search, which colleagues have already mentioned, of course the police must have the ability, sometimes, to stop and search when people are reasonably suspected of various crimes. However, the danger of abuse lies in the threshold of “reasonable suspicion” being low or, worse, as in the case of this Bill, non-existent.
The Bill originally expanded both suspicion-based and suspicionless stop-and-search powers, meaning that the police could confiscate almost any protest-related item without reasonable suspicion at all. That includes mobile phones, placards and fliers. In fact, it includes anything that could be vaguely connected to a protest.
We already know the dangerous implications of such sweeping powers. Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people and 14 times more likely to be when the police do not require reasonable suspicion at all. Even the Police Federation has raised concerns, saying that the Bill could leave officers “vulnerable to complaint”. It has also said:
“Reasonable Grounds has a firm legal basis, is tried and tested, and therefore affords reassurance to our colleagues engaged in these stops.”
To that end, Lords amendment 6 removes the clauses of the Bill that provide the police with new powers to stop and search without suspicion. I hope that colleagues will support that very reasonable amendment.
Finally, turning to serious disruption prevention orders, the Bill allows the court to ban a person who has simply taken part in two or more protests that caused “more than a minor” hindrance in a five-year period, as I outlined earlier. It will be a crime to breach an order, with a punishment of imprisonment, a fine or both. As I have set out, “more than a minor” hindrance could mean anything. It could be extremely minor, and the provisions will inhibit and restrict the ability of potentially hundreds of thousands of people from protesting and standing up for their civil liberties. It is draconian. Lords amendment 20 removes that clause allowing serious disruption prevention orders to be issued not on conviction. I hope that colleagues across the House will support these very reasonable amendments.

Robin Millar: Thank you for selecting the amendments to Lords amendment 5, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would first like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for bringing his amendments forward. He has put his finger on a couple of important principles about how we do law in this country and how we legislate in this House.
I should start by saying that this debate is absolutely not about abortion. My hon. Friend’s amendments also do not change the legislation regarding buffer zones. As has been said, that debate has happened in this House; they are in place. In fact, the powers providing for buffer zones around abortion clinics already exist. That point was made very well, I may say, by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). She is not in her place, but she highlighted how, where buffer zones have been challenged, their presence has been upheld and  people protesting within them have been moved on. They are both legal and, it would appear from her description, effective for their purpose.
We therefore have not only laws that provide for buffer zones around abortion clinics but some evidence of what those mean in practice. We have the evidence that there are laws that allow for people to be moved on. However, we also have something rather more disturbing: evidence of the way that law is being interpreted.
I would like to make two points about the law and how we approach it. As a Member coming to this House tasked with understanding the issues that we debate—a wide range of issues on all sorts of things—one of the first questions I ask myself, and often one of the first questions asked of me, is, “What evidence is there of the need for this?” I think that that question of necessity and proportionality is an important one, particularly in relation to amendment (b) to Lords amendment 5 tabled by my hon. Friend, which seeks a pause in the legislation until we have established such a need.
Certainly, before any kind of national provision is introduced, it is reasonable to ask, “What is the necessity, and is this proportional?” In 2018, it was established that that necessity was not there, so I have to ask myself how that has changed and why the measure is felt to be necessary now. Is there a material difference? I must confess that I am struggling to understand the objection to providing or securing that evidence to have the confidence that we are acting proportionally and out of necessity.
My second point on my hon. Friend’s amendments is about, effectively, the carve-out or provision for silent prayer. There is no support in this place, nor has there been throughout the passage of the Bill, for any intimidation or harassment of women seeking the services of an abortion clinic. That is an important point, because that is not what the amendments seek to achieve and we already have laws to deal with that.
We have evidence of an arrest that took place for the act of silent prayer. Amendment (a) seeks to make it clear that that is an inappropriate interpretation of our laws.

Stella Creasy: That seems to be the nub of the challenge. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although he does not feel that silent prayer would intimidate him, plenty of users of the service feel that it is intimidating, so it is right that it is in scope?

Robin Millar: The hon. Member has clearly read my notes, because I am coming to that exact point. In response to her earlier comments, I also say that I do not seek to put myself in the place of a woman who is seeking the services of an abortion clinic. I respect the fact that that is an incredibly difficult moment—a sensitive and vital moment—and I cannot seek to understand that from my lived experience, as she said.
Equally, however, as the hon. Member said, it is the presence of the person in that place that is objectionable, because we cannot know what silent prayer is. Hon. Members may well be silently praying that I wrap up my remarks so that we can move to the votes; I have no way of knowing. Prayer is not necessarily marked by a folding of hands, a closing of eyes, a bowing of the head or a thumbing of a rosary, and it is not necessarily marked by kneeling.
Indeed, the evidence from the abortion clinic with a buffer zone around it where the arrest took place is that the person was standing. When challenged, she was arrested on the basis that she was praying silently. There were no placards or graphic images, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, and there was no shouting—there was nothing. That is the point of concern, because what is the basis for the arrest if it is just the presence of someone who is perhaps in the habit of praying silently?
The importance of the issue comes down to three things: thoughts, words and deeds. If our freedom to think, our freedom to speak and our freedom to act exist on a continuum, where we put the marker of where a freedom ends is a statement about our society. Do we place that marker just beyond the freedom to speak, effectively saying that we must watch our speech and what we say? I think we have already established through the laws of the land that we do that, because we do not allow people to speak freely without consideration.
What we have seen, however, through the implementation of existing local laws that the Bill seeks to make national, is an interpretation that says that we do not have freedom of thought. That is the point of my contribution and of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. Specifically, I support them because first, they are a helpful and sadly necessary clarification that we in this country enjoy freedom of thought and the freedom to practise silent prayer; and secondly, when we make laws, it is incumbent on us to pause to test the need for further legislation before introducing unnecessary legislation.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Sarah Jones: I rise to speak on Lords amendments 1, 5, 6 and 20, beginning with the definition of “serious disruption”.
Before I go into the detail, let me mention the publication in 2021 of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s now widely debated report looking at protests and how the police response was working. Matt Parr, Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, called for a “modest reset” of the balance between police powers and the right to protest in order to respond to the changing nature of the protests we were seeing, which were sometimes dangerous; people were taking more risks. The suggestions included far more measures that were non-legislative than legislative, such as better training for police, better understanding of the law and a more sophisticated response to protests. What has followed has been a series of escalations of more and more unnecessary legislation that the police have not asked for and that will not have an impact on the actual challenge.
We have gathered to debate public order legislation many times in this House, and while there have been numerous Ministers, I have been here every single time. For our part, we suggested a modest reset of the laws, as suggested by Her Majesty’s inspectorate, with amendments making injunctions easier for local organisations to apply for and with stronger punishment for obstructing the highway. Our sensible amendments were rejected by the Government in favour of this raft of legislation, which now finds itself in ping-pong, because the House of Lords is quite rightly saying that these proposals are not necessary.
What do the Government think their amendments to the Lords amendments will actually deliver? Their impact assessment is quite clear. Let us look, for example, at the new offence of locking on, which is going to change everything, we are told. Let me quote:
“the number of additional full custody years”—
the number of prison years that will result from this new offence—
“lies within the range of zero to one”.
That is the impact this Bill will have: zero to one years of custodial sentences.
What about the serious disruption prevention orders we are debating today? How many custodial cases will they amount to? The answer is three to five. Well, that is all worth it then! The rights to be taken away, as Conservative and Opposition Members have so eloquently described, will be for three to five cases with custodial convictions a year.
The impact assessment is extraordinary.
Matt Parr of Her Majesty’s inspectorate clearly said that there was
“a wide variation in the number of specialist officers available for protest policing throughout England and Wales”,
and that
“Non-specialist officers receive limited training in protest policing.”
He made several recommendations about increased and better training. Have the Government listened to these sensible concerns? Not a bit. Their impact assessment states that the police will need seven minutes to understand this entire new Bill and to implement it fairly—seven minutes. The truth is that they do not listen to the police and they do not listen to what is actually needed; they just want a headline.
To pause for a minute, today we have all been appalled by the offences David Carrick was guilty of in the run-up to the murder of Sarah Everard, and these appalling sexual crimes and this epidemic of violence against women and girls needs a proper response, yet the Government are prioritising this legislation over a victims Bill.
Laws already exist to tackle protest that the police use every day. Criminal damage is an offence, as are conspiracy to cause damage, trespass, aggravated trespass, public nuisance, breach of the peace and obstruction of a highway—I could go on. In April 2019, 1,148 Extinction Rebellion activists were arrested and more than 900 were charged. In October 2019, 1,800 protesters were arrested. Many have been fined, and many have gone to prison. The impact assessment for this Bill suggests a few hundred arrests; the police are already making thousands. The powers are there for the police to use.
Turning to the definition of “serious disruption”, we must be clear about the history. The Opposition asked for a definition of “serious disruption” long ago in debates on what is now the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government said no, but then agreed to a definition in the Lords. It was not a very good one, and we tried to amend it. The police have asked us for greater clarity on the definition of “serious disruption” because the Government have drafted such poor legislation that it is important for them to interpret how and when they should and should not intervene.  But the new definition appears to include as serious disruption situations such as if I have to step aside on a pavement to avoid a protestor. The police do not want to diminish people’s rights through this definition—they have said that time and again, and privately they think the Government are getting this wrong.
In the other place it was agreed that “prolonged disruption” was needed for a serious disruptive activity to have taken place, but the new Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 1 suggests that I would be causing serious disruption if I hindered an individual or organisation
“to more than a minor degree”.
That goes too far.

Charles Walker: Does the shadow Minister agree that this provision is extraordinary, because there is often disruption around the Houses of Parliament when there is a protest and people march around Parliament Square and up to Trafalgar Square? That is a disruption, and is more than a minor disruption, but it is the type of disruption that most people in a free and democratic society can live with.

Sarah Jones: The hon. Gentleman has made many good points already this afternoon, and I entirely agree;
“more than a minor degree”
is way too low a bar to allow these interventions. Many Members and many watching the debate would have fallen foul of this law.
The amendment is drawn so widely that it is almost meaningless. As the hon. Gentleman said, when there are protests on Whitehall, near Parliament Square, there can be large crowds, and banners and speeches, so they are noisy. In 1 Parliament Street, where my office is, we have to shut the windows, which is irritating, but we are not hindered to the extent that we expect police interference. There are so many scenarios that could come under the scope of this definition that would render it ludicrous.
If I chain myself to a tree to protest at a new road and a couple of people are unable to cross a road to go to the supermarket, is that more than a minor disruption, or not? We have to remember that serious disruption, however it is defined—and I argue that here it is defined without any legal certainty—does not have to happen for offences under the Bill to be committed. This sloppiness and breadth of drafting is unacceptable, and the police do not want it. They just want clarity, and this will not bring clarity.
Turning to suspicionless stop and search, the Government have tabled a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 6. The motion would reinsert wide-ranging powers for the police to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest, for example shoppers passing a protest against a library closure, tourists walking through Parliament Square, or civil servants walking to their office. If there is a large crowd in Parliament Square and a tourist gets caught up in it, they could be stopped; they could have no idea what is going on, and would be an offence to resist.
Stop and search is disproportionately used against black people in this country. Do Members on the Government Benches really want to pass legislation for powers that risk further damaging the relationship between  the police and our communities? Instead of actually targeting serious gun crime, serious knife crime or terrorism, the Government are choosing to focus on stopping and searching people who may or may not be taking part in a protest. That is not proportionate.
Former police officers have warned that these powers risk further diminishing trust in public institutions. That will put the police in a difficult position, and it risks undermining the notion of policing by consent. Members of the other place were right to remove the powers to stop and search without suspicion, and the Government are wrong to put them back in.
We agree with what the Government have done with regard to the journalists clause and amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 17. The right to protest is a hard-won democratic freedom that many have fought for in our history, and many are fighting for it in other parts of the world. A free press is another hallmark of our democratic society. The amendment will not prevent the police from responding to someone who is causing trouble and happens to be a journalist, but, crucially, it will allow reporters to observe and report to the wider public about the happenings of a protest. Considering the scope, breadth and low bar of most of the powers in the Bill, reporting on their potential misuse or wrong application is even more important. That is a power that must be protected, so we welcome the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 17.
We are fundamentally against the principle of serious disruption prevention orders. We do not agree with them on conviction and we certainly do not agree with them not on conviction. The Government have tabled a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 20 and tabled their own amendment in lieu. That reinstates but limits the ability to apply an SDPO to someone without a protest-related conviction. We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that their initial draft was overreaching and unnecessary. However, we do not support the five-year conviction compromise that they suggest. Problems remain, in that police could still apply for a SDPO to prevent a person from carrying out activities that are merely likely to result in serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation. The Met police commissioner said that
“policing is not asking for new powers to constrain protests”,
but SDPOs on conviction unfortunately remain in the Bill. An SDPO treats a peaceful protestor like the Government treat terrorists. Does the Minister really want to treat peaceful protestors, however annoying they may be, as serious criminals?
On buffer zones, the Opposition do not agree with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5. It is important to remember that we have already voted on this issue in this place. We voted to introduce buffer zones and in the other place the Conservative peer Baroness Sugg did a very good job of tidying up the Bill. We have already voted in both Houses to introduce what we now call safe access zones. Lords amendment 5 is really important, creating a 150-metre safe access zone around abortion clinics to stop the intimidation and harassment of women and healthcare professionals. The proposed changes to the amendment would risk preventing people from getting the medical support they need.

Robin Millar: Does the hon. Lady accept that the evidence from the abortion buffer zones that exist at present is that people are being arrested for silent prayer?  That is a fact. If she does, does she then accept that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 is necessary to provide a provision for silent prayer?

Sarah Jones: I do not agree with that interpretation at all. We have public space protection orders around some abortion clinics now, and we are broadening that out. That has been voted for twice, in this House and in the other place. I believe very firmly that the changes proposed in amendment (a) would risk preventing people from getting the medical support they need. Let me explain why.
I am a person of faith. I have also walked into an abortion clinic. I pray, but I also know how intimidating it is to walk past people silently standing there with signs trying to communicate, trying to pray, trying to persuade women to change their mind. It is a balance that we strike in this place between a woman’s right to privacy and healthcare and everybody’s right to go about their business and do what they choose. This place has already struck that balance.
I will explain why I also believe the proposal would not work. It goes way beyond silent prayer. Amendment (a) states:
“No offence is committed under subsection (1) by a person engaged in consensual communication”.
What is “consensual communication”? How on earth can we define it? Members have said women should not be harassed. Everybody agrees with that, but one person’s consensual communication is another person’s harassment. We have taken some legal advice on the amendment. The Government, when considering whether to support it, should look at the wider implications it might have.

Bernard Jenkin: Just to make the obvious point, the whole purpose of the buffer zones legislation is to create an exclusion zone around abortion clinics so that people with views they want to express about the subject of abortion clinics will not be in contact with people going to use those services. Amendment (a) would drive a coach and horses through that whole process. The way it is worded would mean that people would be protected from accusations of harassment, because their actions
“shall not…be taken to be…harassment”
whatever they may actually be doing, so long as they can call it silent prayer. That drives a coach and horses through what the House of Lords compromised on and what the House of Commons originally agreed to vote for and approve.

Sarah Jones: The hon. Member is completely right. The amendment also risks driving a coach and horses through all the protests legislation. If I am standing outside Parliament protesting and being annoying and loud, the police may want to intervene, but I might say, “Actually, I’m silently praying. Are you going to tell me I’m not?” How far does the amendment ride roughshod over all our definitions of protest? That is a question that the hon. Members who support it have not considered.

Nicholas Fletcher: What the hon. Lady just said is completely and utterly wrong—the chuntering on the Government Benches proves that. We are banning people from praying—silently—in a Christian country. Can we let that sink in? This is ridiculous. I want all colleagues on  the Government Benches to think about this: within a 150-metre zone of a clinic, people will not be allowed to silently pray. Regardless of the reasons behind that, we need to think carefully about what we are doing.

Sarah Jones: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have voted in this House and the other place for the safe access zones. As someone who prays, I understand why we need to introduce that legislation. However, the amendment mentions not just silent prayer but “consensual communication”. How on earth do we define consensual communication? There is no definition.

Stella Creasy: We must be clear that nobody is banning praying. We are saying that there is a time and a place to do it appropriately, which balances with people’s human rights. There has been some concern that, somehow, the buffer zones will take up police resources. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, amending the buffer zone legislation—as the amendment intends—would mean that more police resource would be needed, because it would become so unclear what was and what was not harassment, even when women repeatedly say that praying in their face is not acceptable?

Sarah Jones: I completely agree. Having talked to the police for nearly three years in this role, I know that they want clarity. The amendment provides not clarity but unbelievable confusion, whereas a 150-metre zone provides clarity, and that is what the police want.
The Bill remains an affront to our rights. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that it will not have much effect. It is our job as parliamentarians to come up with laws that solve problems and really work. The Bill does not do that, so the Opposition will vote against the Government tonight. We agree with the Lords, and I urge every Member to look to their conscience and do the same.

Chris Philp: As always, it is a great pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). She has faced a number of Policing Ministers in her time, and I hope she faces many more during what I hope will be a very long tenure as shadow Minister.
We have heard some extremely thoughtful and well-considered contributions from both sides of the House on quite profound issues, touching as they do on conscience, free speech and a woman’s right to choose in relation to an abortion, as well as slightly more prosaic questions on policing protests. The objective of the Bill is to better balance the rights of individuals to protest—which this Government respect—with the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives without suffering from disruption. Those include the rights of parents to get their children to school, of people to get to hospital for vital treatment and of people to go to work without having their way impeded.
We have seen so many protests impeding the rights of the law-abiding majority, particularly in the latter half of 2022. There were 10-mile tailbacks on the M25. People glued themselves to roads in London and it took a long time to remove them. In December, we saw protesters walking slowly down streets, deliberately trying to cause as much disruption as possible—not so much  exercising the right to protest as seeking to make a point by deliberately inconveniencing their fellow citizens. That is not something that this Government support, which is one reason why we are now legislating. The Metropolitan police have confirmed that between October and December last year they spent 13,600 officer shifts policing such protests, at a cost of nearly £10 million. That is time and money that would be much better spent elsewhere.
I turn to the definition of serious disruption in Lords amendment 1. Members across the House agree on the need to define it, and the Metropolitan police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have argued for such a definition, but we do not think that Lords amendment 1 strikes quite the right balance. Instead, we have carefully studied an amendment tabled in the other place by Lord Hope of Craighead. It included a definition of serious disruption, but it was not voted on because another amendment was voted on first. We think that Lord Hope of Craighead, who is a Cross-Bench peer and a former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, got it right by proposing a threshold of “more than minor” inconvenience. The minor inconvenience that the shadow Minister described would not be caught under such a provision, because the “more than minor” threshold would not be exceeded.
As one would expect of a former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Hope of Craighead was not simply making the threshold up; he was referring to case law. I refer the House to the Court of Appeal judgment in the Colston statue case. At paragraphs 116 and 121 of his leading judgment, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, made it clear that where criminal damage is more than “minor or trivial”, it would be acceptable to consider the criminal law to override or trump the rights enshrined in articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR.
Our definition of serious disruption has been proposed by a former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, a Cross-Bench peer, and it enshrines case law handed down by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, no less. I therefore feel very comfortable in commending our amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister confirm something for the sake of clarity? In the past, major peaceful demonstrations such as anti-nuclear demonstrations have blocked roads, but it was done with the permission of the police. That would continue, would it not?

Chris Philp: Yes, it would. My right hon. Friend pre-empts my next point, which I think an Opposition Member raised earlier. Where a protest has been authorised and licensed in advance by the police, of course these provisions will not be engaged. Protests such as the Iraq war protests aimed at the former Labour Government would, of course, be licensed. Protests against this Government would no doubt be licensed as well and could properly be held.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who I see is back in his place, made a point about whether the Bill could be used to disrupt strike action. I draw his attention and that of the House to the Bill’s original clauses 6 and 7, which as a result of the Lords amendments have been renumbered as clauses 7 and 8.  Subsection (2)(b) of each clause makes it clear that it will be a defence to offences under the Bill that the act in question was undertaken
“in…furtherance of a trade dispute”,
so trade union protests and anything to do with strikes are exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
I think that the definition we have set out is reasonable. The police have asked for it, the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court supports it, it backs up the case law and I strongly commend it to the House.
Lords amendments 2, 3 and 4 deal with tunnelling. They are clarificatory amendments, making it clear that the offence of causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel, as defined by clause 4, is committed only if the tunnel has been created for the purposes of a protest. Lords amendments 10 and 16 relate to some clarifications involving the British Transport Police which we think are important. Lords amendments 6,7, 8, 9 and 36 pertain to so-called suspicionless stop and search.

John Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves on to this subject, will he give way?

Chris Philp: In just a moment.
As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) correctly said in an intervention, these so-called suspicionless stop and searches can only take place in the absence of personal suspicion, when an officer of the rank of inspector or above believes, or has reason to believe, that in the next 24 hours a number of offences may be committed in the locality. That reasonable belief is required before any suspicionless stop and search can take place, and even then it is time-bound to a period of 24 hours. We think that that is proportionate. We have heard some views from the police and, in particular, from the His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which has said: “On balance, our view is that, with appropriate guidance and robust and effective safeguards, the proposed stop and search powers would have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe.” So this is something that HMIC has supported.

Stuart McDonald: I think we all accept that suspicionless stop and search can be triggered quite rightly, for example if there is a danger of terrorism, but the Bill now allows it to take place when, for instance, there could be a danger that someone somewhere might commit a public nuisance or lock themselves to a fence. That could lead to hundreds or even thousands of suspicionless searches, which is surely disproportionate.

Chris Philp: I do not accept that. When there is a reasonable suspicion that in the next 24 hours offences may be committed which may themselves have a profoundly disruptive effect on members of the public, it is reasonable to prevent that. Let me point the hon. Gentleman to the example of the protests on the M25 last November, when a 10-mile tailback was caused. I suggest that preventing that would be a reasonable thing to do.
Lords amendment 17 deals with the question of journalists. As I have said previously, although the law as it stands does protect journalists—in fact, an apology rapidly followed the arrest of the journalist in Hertfordshire  —the Government accept that clarification and reaffirmation of journalistic freedom is important, so we accept the spirit and the principle of the amendment. We have improved the wording slightly in our amendment in lieu, but we accept that journalists need special protection.
Lords amendments 18, 19 and 20 deal with serious disruption prevention orders. There has been some confusion over this, on both sides of the House, so I will reiterate the point for the purpose of complete clarity. The Government have accepted the point made in the Lords that a conviction is required before a serious disruption prevention order can be made. That is a significant concession. However, we do not accept Lords amendment 20, because clause 20—as formerly numbered —simply allows for an application to be made at a time after conviction, but a conviction must previously have taken place. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu.
I think it important to emphasise that there will be a free vote on buffer zones, at least on the Government side, because it concerns an issue of conscience, namely abortion. There is no Government position on this matter, and Members will vote according to their consciences. We have heard Members on both sides of the House speak about this issue passionately and with conviction.

John Hayes: I hear what the Minister says about that, and he has heard the strong opinions expressed from this side of the Chamber in favour of the freedom to pray silently. Speaking personally and for the guidance of the House, will he tell us whether he will be supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), which allows free and silent prayer?

Chris Philp: My right hon. Friend is putting me on the spot a little bit. I would like to reiterate that the Government are neutral on this position. It is a free vote and there is no Government position, and in my capacity as a Government Minister I do not have a view. Obviously, as a Member of Parliament, I will be voting as an individual on this question. I do think, speaking personally, that women should be free to use these services without intimidation or harassment, which is why I voted for the amendment from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) when it was first tabled, but I do not think the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South undermines that, particularly given the words in proposed subsection (3B), which say that prayer
“shall not, without more, be taken to”
influence a person’s decision. So, personally, I will vote for that, but I emphasise again that the Government do not have a position and this is a free vote. We have heard some extremely thoughtful, well-considered, well-argued and sincerely held views on both sides, and Members will no doubt make up their own minds. up.

Stella Creasy: I respect the fact that the Minister has his own personal opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, can he confirm to the Chamber that this legislation, as amended in the Lords, is compliant with the European convention on human rights and that it does not criminalise praying but sets out boundaries for where it should occur?

Chris Philp: I think we will ultimately have to defer to the Attorney General, but my understanding is that the legislation, as amended by the Lords and if amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South’s amendment, would in both cases be compliant with the European convention on human rights. Indeed, it is our opinion that the entire Bill is consistent with the European convention on human rights.
I think I have probably spoken for long enough—[Interruption.] Did someone say, “Hear, hear”? This Bill strikes the right balance between protecting the right to protest and making sure that our constituents can go about their day-to-day business without unreasonable hindrance, that parents can get their children to school, that patients can get to hospitals and that people can get to their place of work. That is the right balance, and I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 be made.

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 299.
Question accordingly negatived.
More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Lords amendment 5 agreed to.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 236.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 6 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 7 to 9 and 36 disagreed to.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 235.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment (a) proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 1. —(Chis Philp.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 231.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 17 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 17.

Clause 20 - Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20.—(Chris Philp.)

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 232.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 20 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 21, 23, 27, 28, 31 to 33 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendments 20 to 23, 27, 28, and 31 to 33. —(Chris Philp.)
Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 6 to 9 and 36;
That Chris Philp, Scott Mann, James Sunderland, Aaron Bell, Sarah Jones, Gerald Jones and Stuart C McDonald be members of the Committee;
That Chris Philp be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Robert Largan.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the name of Secretary Grant Shapps relating to Energy.—(Robert Largan.)

Energy

Amanda Solloway: I beg to move,
That the Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, dated 19 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.

Roger Gale: With this we shall take the following motion:
That the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023, dated 22 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.

Amanda Solloway: The instruments were laid between 11 January and 23 February 2023, and their purpose is to ensure that benefits from the alternative fuel payment, both domestic and non-domestic, are passed through to consumers. Throughout this winter, the Government have delivered critical support to households, businesses and other non-domestic consumers in response to the unprecedented rise in energy prices. The Government brought forward emergency legislation on energy support, paving the way for this support package to be delivered rapidly across the entire United Kingdom.
The alternative fuel payments scheme provides support to households, organisations and businesses that do not use mains gas and use alternative fuels such as heating oil. Eligible domestic consumers using alternative fuels will receive a one-off fixed payment of £200. Non-domestic consumers will receive £150.

Alan Brown: Can the Minister tell us how many households are still waiting to access the £200 payment?

Amanda Solloway: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. With his permission, I will get back to him with the answer.
The pass-through requirement regulations are an important part of the support package and of ensuring that support reaches those who need it. The alternative fuel payment and non-domestic alternative fuel payment pass-through schemes set out in the regulations take the same approach as other energy schemes, particularly the energy bills support scheme and the energy bill relief scheme. They make it mandatory for intermediaries to pass the financial benefit of the schemes through to end users, which is necessary because that benefit is being delivered through electricity suppliers. In some cases, a supplier will have a contract with an intermediary such as a landlord or a heat network rather than with the end user, so we need to ensure that the support that it provides to the intermediary is passed on to the end user in a fair way.
Let me clarify what I mean by “end user”. In the case of both the alternative fuel payment and the non-domestic alternative fuel payment, an end user is an individual who consumes energy and pays for its usage through an intermediary such as a landlord. We are talking about tenants of different types—they could be domestic tenants, businesses or any kind of organisation.
Like other energy schemes, the schemes set out in the regulations require that support be passed on in a “just and reasonable” way. The regulations have been drafted in that way to account for the many kinds of relationship between an intermediary and an end user. If we used a narrow definition of “just and reasonable”, we could run the risk of inadvertently excluding some intermediaries from the pass-through requirements.
The regulations also accommodate scenarios in which there are multiple end users to whom intermediaries pass on support. They make it clear when and how intermediaries should communicate with end users regarding the benefit that is being passed on.
Our approach to enforcement is consistent with the approach taken in other energy schemes, particularly the energy bills support scheme in Great Britain. If an intermediary does not pass on the benefit to a user who is entitled to it, that user will be able to pursue recovery of the benefit debt through civil proceedings. Should a court rule in the end user’s favour, the end user will be entitled to the payment plus interest at 2% above the Bank of England base rate.
The Government have published guidance on gov.uk to ensure that the requirements are clear to all parties. If necessary, there are also template letters that tenants can use to contact their landlords if they are concerned about their energy bills. The Government are working with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the pass-through regulations work for everybody in scope, including vulnerable people and vulnerable groups.

Alistair Carmichael: It is apparent from my constituency casework that there are people who have already received the payment through their energy company, but who probably should not have. I ask the Minister to confirm on the Floor of the House what she has told me in correspondence:
“Government will not require customers to repay an Alternative Fuel Payment which they have received, even if they use electricity to heat their homes.”

Amanda Solloway: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am very new in post, so I will check that point before I respond, if I may.
The regulations are vital to ensuring that support reaches the people it is designed to help. They are essential to the effectiveness of the alternative fuel payment in GB and the non-domestic alternative fuel payment across the United Kingdom. They will ensure that intermediaries pass on the support to those who really need it: the households and non-domestic energy customers most vulnerable to high energy costs. With all those important reasons in mind, I commend the regulations to the House.

Alan Whitehead: As the Minister has said, these statutory instruments deal with alternative fuel payments within the general scope of the domestic energy price guarantee scheme and the non-domestic energy bills support schemes. They deal specifically with circumstances in which the customer does not hold a fuel account directly with the supplier but, either domestically or commercially, is able to secure assistance with energy costs by ensuring that the saving is passed through from the supplier to them. This applies to, for example, park home occupiers or, in business cases, end users such as those who run cafés and guest houses and are lessees of a landlord who pays the bills,  and receives the rebate, in the first instance. There will be pass-through payments of £200 for domestic end users and £150 for non-domestic end users. It should be noted that in Northern Ireland alternative fuel payments have been combined with a main payment of £600.
These latest SIs represent what I hope is the end of a long line of provisions for various sub-categories of people for whom we seem to have been legislating for a very long time. However, we ought to note, at least in passing, that this has meant that schemes that were announced in the autumn and were supposed to run for six months are now in the last month of their operation, and some people who should have received support are still waiting for it six months after the scheme started. Lest there be any doubt about that, I can tell the House that in February the Government issued a press release headed “Households, businesses and organisations off the gas grid to receive energy bill support over the coming weeks”, which stated that:
“£200 payments for off grid households start today, while businesses off the grid are expected to receive £150 payments by 10 March”,
which is in three days’ time. I therefore think that the inquiry from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) about who had not yet received their payments is rather germane, given what the Government themselves said about the long delays in releasing the payments.
I appreciate that the support schemes have proved difficult to administer, and that there have been repeated instances of new sub-categories of people for whom separate secondary legislation has been necessary to secure the integrity of the schemes, but does the Minister really sit comfortably with the knowledge that a not inconsiderable number of customers, both domestic and non-domestic, did not receive help that was often desperately needed for virtually the whole passage of the scheme itself, and in some instances, as I have said, may not receive support until the middle of the month?
We will not be opposing the SIs. Indeed, we want to see them dispatched so that help, albeit late, can assuredly reach people, particularly those who are relying on pass-through arrangements for relief when they do not receive the up-front sums directly. We are discussing these SIs because—as far as I can see—of defects in the original pass-through SIs, which we have already debated, as reported to the Government by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Committee cited one particular defect in the Energy Bills Support Scheme and Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which failed to make it clear that support is to be delivered as a single rather than a monthly payment. That has been corrected in the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023. However, the Committee reported on a second defect in the legislation which I think is potentially serious: namely, the fact that there are requirements in both pass-through SIs for the intermediary in the scheme to notify the end user within 30 days of the provision of the scheme benefit of how and when the pass-through will take place and what amount will be passed through, and convey the important information that the end user can recover amounts to which they are entitled but do not receive as a civil debt.
All the information about how the end user can expect a pass-through benefit should be contained in the information from the intermediary. The Committee noted that no sanction is attached to the provision to cover cases in which the intermediary fails to inform the end user in that way. It seems that the vital part of telling someone that they will receive the benefit or can sue the intermediary if they do not receive it is essentially a voluntary act for the intermediary to perform.
Yes, they should send the information, and yes, the legislation says that they should, but if they do not, nothing will happen to them, and unless the end user is aware of their entitlements, they might remain in complete ignorance of an expected payment. Thus, nothing will happen as far as a payment is concerned. This is in spite of requirements being placed in the main legislation, the Energy Prices Act 2022. Section 10(b) of that Act states that regulations may make provision
“for the payment of a specified amount, on an application made in accordance with the regulations by a person who is an end user of an intermediary, where the intermediary fails to comply with a requirement by virtue of subsection (9) to provide information to the person”.
It is therefore clear in the main legislation what the secondary legislation is intended to achieve.
The Government’s response to the information they received from the Committee on this defect was to decide not to amend their approach and effectively to ignore this provision in the Act. They say so in the explanatory notes to this SI, and it is worth putting the Government’s line of argument for ignoring the main legislation on record. The explanatory notes state:
“Section 19(10)(b) of the Energy Prices Act 2022 provides that pass-through regulations may require an intermediary who is in breach of requirements to provide information to pay a specified amount on application by the end user to a specified person. The Department decided that the incentive for end users to make such an application for payment would have been insufficient given the time and administrative burden involved in doing so. However it is still considered that there is merit in including notification requirements in the instrument. This is on the basis that many intermediaries would be likely to comply with the requirements notwithstanding the lack of an enforcement mechanism.”
Frankly, that is a rather laughable defence for not doing in the secondary legislation what the original Act said should be done.
Is the Minister comfortable with this state of affairs where the secondary legislation has written out a provision contained in the primary legislation and potentially makes the receipt of relief from bills much more capricious in the process? Does she consider that there is arguably a case for action against the Government by those deprived of the information to which they are entitled on the grounds of negligence in doing their own pass-through, which is to pass the requirements of primary legislation into secondary legislation in such a way that it reflects the primary provisions? Clearly these are not in themselves grounds for chucking these SIs out on a vote, but perhaps the Minister should consider, since she is clearly no stranger to SIs, correcting the defects of previous SIs, and consider whether there might be a case for a further correction of these SIs to place the primary and secondary legislation on a watertight footing.

Alan Brown: It is quite incredible that we are debating these SIs in the main Chamber today. They should never have been on the Floor of the House. This is proof that, apart from othering asylum seekers, this zombie Government are just padding out what would otherwise be normal Government time. It is also ridiculous that, six months down the line from announcing the energy support scheme, so many people are unfortunately still waiting for the moneys they are due. Can the Minister confirm whether these regulations and the applications being opened up for the alternative payment will now resolve the park home issue as has been long promised? For clarity, will these regulations resolve that issue?
It would be good to know how many people are still waiting on their moneys. Also, why do so many people have to jump through hoops and apply for alternative fuel support? Why do people in areas such as the highlands and islands, where there are many more people off the gas grid than there are in Northern Ireland, have to apply when every household in Northern Ireland gets the £200 payment anyway? It is clear that people in the highlands and islands of Scotland have fallen through the cracks, and the Government should look at this again, especially if they are going to repeat the scheme in future.
The first SI is about the pass-through of payments from the likes of commercial landlords. Does the Minister know how many payments are estimated to have been made to landlords that still have not been passed on? As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments confirmed that the Government expect information to be provided to them from these commercial landlords, except that there is no enforcement mechanism. This is a defective SI, yet despite that, the Government have chosen to bring it back to the Floor of the House in the main Chamber and do nothing about support or about changing the defects reported by the Joint Committee. Have the Government considered any such mechanism to allow the enforcement of information reporting? If not, and if there is no way to enforce it, how can they assess whether this support, this taxpayers’ money, is going to those who need it, rather than being held up by intermediaries? This money should be passed on to the people to whom it is rightfully due.
The truth is that there is no incentive for commercial landlords to report, even those who are doing the right thing in passing on the money, because it is just time-wasting for them. Why should they see any merit in reporting what they have done? That means that, overall, the Government will not be able to assess the scheme’s success in getting the money to those to whom it is due.
The key question is, why is the onus being put on individuals to pursue any moneys they are owed as a civil debt? In reality, how many people know they can go to court to claim the £200 they perhaps did not receive? Again, that is beyond most people’s knowledge and ken.
Looking forward, as we come to the end of the initial energy price guarantee scheme, and given that the Government have borrowed a lot less money than they thought they would, they really must look at reducing bills. Even holding bills at £2,500, on average, is not  enough because it would keep 6.5 million households in fuel poverty. We are calling for a £500 reduction. It is also critical that they review the support for small businesses, which will receive an estimated £200 on average. That is a drop in the ocean compared with their high energy bills. The Government must look at that as we come to the new financial year.

Peter Aldous: I was not planning to speak in this short debate, so I will be brief.
We have waited a long time for this statutory instrument. During that time, many very vulnerable people have been suffering. I acknowledge that, from the Government’s broad perspective, it is a challenge to get this legislation right, but my concern, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister can allay, is that the punishment for landlords—I am thinking in particular of some rogue park home site owners—who do not pass on the money is, I sense, puny rather than punitive. They will just laugh at the punishment. I hope I am wrong, but I ask the Minister to take on board my concern.

Alistair Carmichael: I declare an interest, as my home is off grid. We are heated by an oil-based central heating system, and I have received the £200 alternative fuel payment from my energy company, Octopus Energy.
The Liberal Democrats support this scheme but, like others, we have very serious concerns about the way in which it has been constructed and implemented. I have liaised with the Minister through correspondence and at Business questions last week on the fact that a number of people whose homes are heated entirely by electricity should not, on my reading of the regulations, have been given the alternative fuel payment, but on the basis of the modelling used by the Department, they have been given it. Others in an identical situation will now have to make an application through the portal that went live yesterday. If the Government are to implement their own regulations, those applications will be refused. That will leave us in the manifestly unfair situation whereby, for two households in exactly the same situation, one will be in receipt of the £200 payment and the other will not. The Minister has already told me in correspondence that there are no plans to claw back payments that have been made. That being the case, what will be the remedy for those whose application through the portal is refused?
I look at the information that has been put into the public domain on the way in which tokens for people on prepayment meters can be paid out, and I look at the information that has been given to me by my own energy company, and they both say that the tokens can be redeemed through PayPoint. That is true, but they can also be obtained through the Post Office. Only a handful of the outer islands in my constituency have access to PayPoint, but people can go to their local post office. The information going to the end energy user should surely reflect that.
One business in Orkney brought to my attention today the fact that it will not, apparently, receive the payment because it changed its energy supplier at the start of the year. It will not get the payment from its new energy supplier or from its former one, which, again, appears to be a fundamental unfairness.
The issue relating to district heating schemes does not affect many communities, but it very much affects Lerwick, where Shetland Heat, Energy & Power provides a district heating scheme to many local households. It appears to us that they have been excluded from the scheme. Will the Minister explain to us, either now or in correspondence, why that should be the case?
The applications that are now having to be made by those who have not received their payment automatically are to be done through the portal. So will the Minister tell us how long it will take for those people to be given a decision? In the event that they are unhappy with the decision made, what will be their appeal process? It is matter of record that there is a significant overlap between homes that are off grid and those that have poor or no internet access. A number of vulnerable elderly people just do not use internet services at all, but there appears only to be an online application process. Will the Minister explain to the House why no offline process—no paper-based process—is in place for that small number of people who remain highly vulnerable?
Finally, I turn to the issue of those who rely on solid fuel—peat, coal or logs—for their heating. It is now apparent that they will have to provide receipts. Those can go back to September, but someone who has been buying coal at their shop, perhaps in a small bag, every week since goodness knows when will not have kept their receipts. How are those people, who have incurred the expense, going to get access to this important payment? It is arbitrary to say that solid fuel bought only after September will be eligible for reimbursement. I know a lot of people who will buy solid fuel in the summer months because it is at its cheapest then. What will be done to ensure that those people, who are now being told that they should have been keeping the receipts from their weekly shopping since September, are not going to be excluded?
Will the Minister tell us how many payments have already been made? How many people will now have to make an application through the portal? How many does the Department estimate will remain off grid but will not receive a payment under this scheme?

Ben Lake: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), because he raised a number of important points and concerns echoed by many of my constituents. Ceredigion is a mainland constituency that has one of the highest proportions of domestic households not connected to the mains gas grid—74% of properties are off grid there. Clearly, the scheme is very welcome and will offer a great deal of support for many of my constituents. However, the right hon. Gentleman drew upon a few concerns that I share and would like to bring to the Minister’s attention this evening, as I believe they warrant urgent attention.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, those who have not received the payments automatically are required to make an online application. I have already been contacted, since yesterday, by many constituents who have explained that although they are eligible and satisfy most of the criteria, their applications have been refused and they cannot proceed any further because they have not got evidence that they bought fuel after September 2022.  Many of these people will have bought oil in August or July. I know and I am anticipating arguments that fuel was slightly cheaper in those months than it would have been during the winter months, and I do not deny that, but they were not to know at the time that they would be punished for buying in advance. They were not to know that if they bought in August, as they often do, they would be at a disadvantage under this scheme.
I cannot comprehend of a fair line of argument that the Government could produce to satisfy me that some of my constituents, who have been buying in the month of August for decades in some cases, should be punished when their neighbours, who perhaps were not able to buy in August—there were many difficulties at the time— will receive a £200 payment. I would be grateful if the Minister could satisfy the House that there will be some discretion for people who bought in August. Although the prices in August were cheaper than in the winter, they were still significantly higher than prices in 2021 or 2020. The prices in August 2022 were more than double those of August 2020. It is important that individuals are not punished by an arbitrary cut-off date for the online scheme.
If we need more arguments against the arbitrary cut-off date, it is obvious that those who have received the payment automatically may not have bought fuel after September 2022, but they will benefit from the £200 because they have a direct relationship with an electricity supplier. That is an unintended unfair consequence of the scheme. I support the scheme, but that is a hitch that needs to be addressed.
My other concern is that the postcode details of a number of off-grid homes in Ceredigion were not supplied to energy suppliers—for various reasons, mainly because they are new builds or new estates—so they did not receive the payments automatically. I am grateful to the Minister and the Department for clarifying that those households are eligible for the payments but that they will need to apply through the online portal. The potential problem is that because they have a direct relationship with an electricity supplier, they will have taken it for granted that they would receive the payments automatically. I am concerned that some people may not know that they need to make an application through the online portal. Could the Government initiate any steps, such as publicity campaigns, to make sure that everyone who needs to make an application knows that before the scheme concludes?
I echo the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) when he said that we need to look ahead to next winter. The Government would do well to do the work now to support off-grid homes in winter 2023-24.

Amanda Solloway: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate.
I thank my hon. Friends and other Members for their valuable contributions tonight. I will send on some information about some of the figures that I am unable to give at the moment. The regulations are necessary to ensure that we implement the alternative fuel payment scheme, in Great Britain, and the non-domestic alternative fuel payment scheme by allowing support to reach those who need it, and I think we all agree with that. The schemes are already in place and are delivering support to organisations across the United Kingdom.
As we are all aware, the domestic alternative fuel payment scheme is delivering £200 to households that use alternative fuels such as heating oil, liquified petroleum gas, coal or biomass, helping some 2 million off-grid households to meet their energy costs this winter. The scheme particularly supports households in rural areas that are not connected to the gas grid. Support was doubled to £200 in the autumn statement to reflect the price rises facing people using alternative fuels in their houses. The vast majority of eligible households should have received the payment automatically via their electricity supplier in February.
The non-domestic alternative fuel payment is delivering £150 to non-domestic customers who use alternative fuels for heating, helping premises in Great Britain and Northern Ireland meet their energy costs this winter.

Daniel Poulter: I want to pick up the point about park homes and site owners and ask the Minister to address that specific point in her closing remarks. There are concerns that site owners are not always passing on the benefit of this payment to the residents of park homes. I would like some reassurance that there are proper measures in place and penalties that will make a difference in ensuring that site owners pass the benefit of these payments on to residents.

Amanda Solloway: I will address that in a moment. As I was saying, the scheme supports a wide range of domestic and non-domestic customers, including businesses, schools, hospitals and churches that are not connected to the gas grid. It will also deliver a top-up payment to the highest users of kerosene heating oil. Most eligible non-domestic customers should receive their £150 payment automatically in March, and we continue to update and publicise our guidance on the gov.uk website to ensure that energy users and intermediaries understand their rights and obligations.
I turn now to a couple of other questions that have been raised—as I have said, if I do not address any of the questions that have been asked, I will write to hon. Members. One thing I can confirm is that the Government will not require customers to repay an alternative fuel payment that they have received, even if they use electricity to heat their house.
Thinking about how to ensure that energy users know how to make necessary claims, end users can recover claims to pass-through amounts as civil debts in the county courts, in the same way that other outstanding amounts owed to an individual can be claimed. However, for future pass-through requirements, we will be keeping ahead of that position and making sure that we review it on a constant basis. We have reflected on advice we have received regarding previous pass-through regulations and meaningfully engaged with stakeholders across the United Kingdom to promote and disseminate requirements for all the schemes. That includes working side by side with delivery partners such as utility regulators and energy suppliers, and key stakeholders including consumer ombudsman services.
We considered introducing sanctions on intermediaries if they failed to notify the end user of their rights. However, we decided that the incentive for end users to   make an application for sanctions to be applied would be insufficient, given the time and the administrative burden involved in doing so. None the less, notification requirements were included in the statutory instruments, on the basis that many intermediaries are likely to comply with the requirements set out and that the published guidance clarifies the contents of this obligation. Furthermore, it was considered important to ensure consistency in approach across the pass-through regulations of all energy support schemes.
We will continue to seek views and feedback from those impacted by all these regulations, as well as from key delivery partners. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, dated 19 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.

Energy

Resolved,
That the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023, dated 22 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Business without Debate

Independent Expert Panel

Resolved,
That this House—
(1) takes note of the report of the Independent Expert Panel, The Conduct of Mr Neil Coyle MP, HC 1194, and the recommendation for sanction of a suspension of a total of five sitting days;
(2) accordingly suspends Neil Coyle from the service of the House for five sitting days, in accordance with paragraphs 1.11, 2.40 and 4.38 of that Report, namely Monday 13, Tuesday 14, Wednesday 15, Thursday 16 and Monday 20 March; and
(3) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 45A, directs that Neil Coyle’s salary shall be withdrawn for five days, from Monday 13 March till Friday 17 March.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Medical Devices

That the draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.

Enrivonmental Audit Committee

Ordered,
That Helen Hayes be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Cat Smith be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

Daniel Poulter: It is a pleasure to bring some positive news and, I hope, some reasonable asks to the Minister regarding Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust. May I first declare an interest as a practising psychiatrist? I do not work for the trust, but I think it important to bring the House’s attention to that point.
Over the past few years, we have had many debates in this place and many meetings with Ministers about Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust. The good news is that in the last few days, the trust has been taken off special measures and is no longer rated “inadequate”. The tremendous effort of the board and the staff has paid off, and, as a result, we have seen in the latest Care Quality Commission report a considerable improvement in the quality of patient care.
The background is, as we know, that Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust, which serves roughly 1.6 million people across Norfolk and Suffolk, and has about 87,000 patient contacts a year, has been in difficulties for a number of years. Over the past eight years, the trust has been rated “inadequate” four times, which I think probably places it not just as an outlier but as historically the worst-performing trust in the country for both physical and mental health.
A tremendous amount of work has needed to be put in to turn things around. I am optimistic that the new leadership team at the trust, the board and the staff have done the necessary work and that they will now continue that work to ensure that the people of Norfolk and Suffolk with mental ill health receive the improved care that they need.
In its most recent inspection, the CQC conducted an unannounced comprehensive inspection of two core services: child and adolescent mental health wards and community-based mental health wards. That inspection took place towards the end of last year. The CQC highlighted in its report, which was published on 24 February, a number of areas of improvement. It awarded NSFT an improved overall rating. It still requires improvement as a trust, but that is much better than being inadequate. The trust is now rated “requires improvement” rather than “inadequate” across all CQC domains, with the exception of the caring domain, in which the trust continues to be rated “good”. On individual services, 60% of those inspected are now rated “good”, and the trust no longer has a legal warning notice relating to concerns about the quality and safety of its patient care.
The CQC reported:
“The trust has moved at pace to make the necessary changes and significant improvements could be seen at all levels”.
It also described largely positive feedback from patients and service users, who said that they
“felt safe and well cared for...staff were supportive of their needs and friendly and approachable…staff were kind, they felt listened to…staff helped them when they needed it”
and that
“they were fully involved in their care”.
That is positive feedback from patients.
Key areas of good care highlighted by the CQC included the NSFT’s child and adolescent mental health ward, Dragonfly, which achieved a significantly improved overall rating of “good”; acute wards and community-based mental health services, which support working-age adults and achieved positive improvements in overall ratings; and the community-based mental health services for adults of working age, whose Bury St Edmunds pilot programme for dialectical behavioural therapy—a type of therapy generally provided to people with personality disorders—was recognised for outstanding practice.

Peter Aldous: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He mentioned improvements on the acute wards, and I wanted to highlight that a recurring theme of my 13 years as an MP has been the lack of acute beds in the region, and how for so many people with real challenges beds have to be sourced out of region, which causes them a lot of stress and their families a great deal of anguish as well. I am aware that the trust has plans to address the deficit, but does he agree that this issue must be addressed as a high priority?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been a strong advocate for patients in his constituency receiving the care they need locally, which is something we all want for mental health patients. The trust has identified that out-of-area placements have been a problem, which is now being addressed at board level and throughout all services. Part of that work will be about improving and developing the mental health estate, improving the in-patient facilities available locally in Norfolk and Suffolk, and part of it will be about transforming the model of care, moving away from inappropriate in-patient admissions where people can be better cared for in the community. I will return to that subject, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the trust must continue to focus on reducing out-of-area placement, which is not good for patients or for their families, who want to support them while they are being cared for in hospital.
A key point that the CQC highlighted was strengthened leadership across the organisation, in individual services and particularly at board level. That was reflected in the trust now having a rate of mandatory training compliance among staff of at least 90%, and the trust rolling out accredited training in the prevention and management of violence and aggression, following a case in which restraint had been carried out incorrectly.
There has been significant change at board level, which I believe has been vital in driving the improvements in the quality of patient care. There has been a number of new appointments: trust chair Zoe Billingham, non-executive directors Dr Roger Hall and Sally Hardy, chief executive Stuart Richardson, deputy chief executive and chief people officer Cath Byford, chief medical officer Dr Alex Lewis, who is particularly impressive, and chief operating officer Thandie Matambanadzo have all brought significant experience and qualifications to the trust. It is by bringing in that external expertise that the trust has been able to understand what good looks like, and to begin to transform services and patient care.
The trust’s clinical and other governance processes have been strengthened. The number of board sub-committees has been reduced to streamline systems of assurance. External stakeholders have become more active participants through committee memberships. An evidence assurance  group has been introduced to ensure that progress-monitoring data is accurate. The strengthening of a ward visit quality assurance team has also been important to driving up standards; this team carried out 100 comprehensive visits between March and October 2022. The introduction of a new digitised and simple method of completing clinical audits is another key element of driving up standards at the trust.

Tom Hunt: My hon. Friend has great expertise in this area, so when he speaks his words carry weight. I welcome some of these improvements, but does he agree that, such is the extent of the failure over such a long period, a huge job for the new leadership is to regain the trust of families throughout Norfolk and Suffolk who have lost trust in the organisation, who think it is broken, and who believe a new organisation is the only way forward?

Daniel Poulter: I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour about the importance of rebuilding trust. The CQC highlighted a lot of the work done over the last year as good because the NSFT has rebuilt trust with both staff and the patients who use the service. The patient feedback, which was highlighted by the CQC, has been overwhelmingly positive in that time. That area has been addressed. It is an ongoing piece of work for the trust to focus on. It is also important, before we think about reorganisation—I understand why my hon. Friend has highlighted that—to understand what the consequences of that might be, and I will come to that in my later remarks. My view would be that we now need to get behind and support the new leadership team and recognise that for the first time in eight years we have a trust that is moving in the right direction and now needs to show consistent progress. Reorganisation would be a distraction from continuing that progress and could be detrimental to patient care. Whereas I might have agreed with my hon. Friend a year ago that reorganisation could be a viable option, at this stage, given the progress made and for a number of other reasons that I will come on to, I believe that the solution does not lie in breaking up the trust, but in supporting the board and staff to do the job that they have started and to get the trust not just to “requires improvement”, but to “good” and then to “outstanding”, which is what they would like to do.
The trust has recognised that it has needed to bring forward work to align its strategy with the plans in the broader health and social care system. One of the problems in the past was that the trust was often operating in isolation and not joining up the focus of its care with the work done by other healthcare partners. If we are talking about preventive care and upstream early intervention, a lot of the work going on between NSFT and primary care partners has meant that there is more focus on early intervention and preventing people becoming unwell, and hopefully therefore reducing inappropriate hospital admissions, and that is an important ongoing piece of work.
However, improvements still need to be made. A key area that has been highlighted for improvement by the Care Quality Commission and internally by those who work at the trust is that trust data is not as unified as it could be. While the trust has a large amount and range of data, it is not brought together effectively to focus on  patient care and reduce risk in the way it needs to be. The effect is that struggling services are not always identified quickly enough to be provided with the necessary support, and I know that that will be a key focus over the next year to 18 months. Essential environmental improvements, for example on in-patient wards, do not always happen fast enough within the trust to address patient safety concerns. There is variation in the abilities and confidence of ward and team managers and middle management in clinical care groups, and managers do not always escalate concerns quickly enough to gain the necessary support. The strategic leadership team at the trust has recognised that and is now focusing in particular on ensuring that quality improvement is embedded in everything that everyone at the trust does so that it becomes everyday business, rather than an aspect of clinical audit, as may have been the case in the past.

Duncan Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House. I think we should give credit where credit is due, and it is positive that we now have some green shoots at the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust moving forward, but my concern is that those should be sustainable green shoots and that this is not a yo-yo where the trust goes back into special measures. It should be on a sustainable footing going forward. I know that the chair has reassured many of us that she feels it is a good platform from which to move forward.
One of the points to address is culture and the improvements that need to be made. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key statistics is that 41% of staff leave within the first two years? The trust has to improve on that. People who need a lot of mental health support must form relationships with those who are treating them. The number leaving within those first two years is something that the trust has to improve.

Daniel Poulter: I agree with my hon. Friend. A key issue faced by a lot of mental health trusts, but which is particularly acute at Norfolk and Suffolk, has been a high rate of staff turnover, and that is not good for continuity of patient care. It is not good when we are talking about embedding a culture of safety and quality improvement. It does not help. It is undoubtedly the case that one of the key challenges going forward that has been identified by the trust and the CQC as well as by NHS Improvement, which has been providing external support, is the need to improve staff recruitment and retention. Some of that is a national challenge, but effective initiatives have been introduced at a local level. The new chief medical officer, for example, has introduced staff recruitment and retention initiatives, some of which are financial and some of which relate to improved job planning, which can help to make the trust a more attractive place for staff, not just to work, but to remain for the longer term. We need to see that kind of work being built on and continue in the months and years ahead. The same is true across nursing and all other staff groups.
Other areas to highlight where things are going well include investment. The trust has invested £3.2 million in digital improvements, £1.6 million in improvements in clinical areas, £1.3 million refurbishing bungalows for people with learning disabilities, £1 million to address safety issues, and £600,000 to improve the pharmacy at Hellesdon Hospital in Norwich. There are new services,  including 95 new primary mental health nurses working across the trust directly with primary care, offering more than 80,000 appointments in GP surgeries across Norfolk and Suffolk. There is a 22-strong rehabilitation team and a new armed forces veterans wellbeing service in partnership with Walking with the Wounded and Outside the Wire to help to improve mental health support available to veterans across Norfolk and Suffolk —we have many veterans living in our constituencies.
The trust still has a lot to do, but it has achieved a lot in the past year under new leadership. I should like to put on record my thanks to the board and all the staff for the work they have done in turning things around so effectively and quickly. Key challenges, as we have outlined, remain the recruitment and retention of staff. The trust has launched programmes to address that, but there is still more to do. The CQC report recognised that the NSFT is changing at pace, but it needs to do more than show improvement over a year—it needs to embed the changes, sustain them and secure not just “requires improvement” but “good”. The NSFT needs to continue its work with system partners across Norfolk and Suffolk to improve commissioning and the delivery of mental health services across the patient journey.
The trust requires ongoing support, and I have some brief asks of the Minister. First, the trust requires from the Government another £3 million of funding to complete the £54 million needed for a new campus at Hellesdon Hospital, which would secure the development of three new wards. That is a key aspect of addressing the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) outlined, so that there is less reliance on out-of-area beds. We need more wards to treat more local patients in Norfolk and Suffolk, and less reliance on out-of-area placements. I hope that that £3 million of funding can be secured, and I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how we can go about that.
Secondly, the trust has made inroads into issues associated with its estate, but it needs significant and urgent capital investment in addition to that £3 million to help to develop those new wards and modernise Hellesdon Hospital. More generally, can the Minister outline what capital programmes are available to support the trust in those ambitions?
Thirdly, funding for mental health services has been constrained despite increased needs and patient demand, and, when we are talking about parity of esteem when funding increases for the NHS, my general plea—I would say this as a practising psychiatrist—is for greater funding for general adult and other mainstream psychiatric services.
The next area of asks for the trust is from NHS England. The trust has benefited from strong and experienced outside support from NHS Improvement and from experienced leaders such as Nick Hulme from East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, who was seconded to support the trust. Now that the trust is out of special measures, I hope there is still an opportunity for some of that external support to be maintained, even in a more informal capacity. I look to the Minister to perhaps outline how that may continue or whether she may be able to give some direction to help with that ongoing support, which the trust has found very helpful during these difficult times.
On local decision makers and stakeholders, the trust supports a new model of care for Norfolk and Suffolk, and ensuring that local ICBs work effectively with it to  deliver more preventive upstream care and more care in the community. Reducing inappropriate and unnecessary in-patient admissions is a key priority in the trust’s ambition to transform services and improve patient care, and any support the Minister can offer to encourage or enable the local ICBs to be more effective at doing that would be gratefully received by the trust.
On the issue of breaking up the trust, I would urge the Minister to give a commitment at the Dispatch Box today that, given the progress that has been made by a very effective new board—a group of individuals with a good skillset—and given the commitment that has been shown to staff and to turning around the trust and moving it away from special measures and away from “inadequate” towards “requires improvement”, the threat of the trust being broken up can be taken off the table at this stage so that the trust can focus on caring for its patients. Breaking up the trust now would be very disruptive to patient care. It also would be financially inefficient and would lead to a worsening of the retention and recruitment challenges, which have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), with staff feeling that their jobs are insecure.
To sum up, we are asking for support with capital projects, particularly around Hellesdon Hospital. We are asking for ongoing support, be it informally from NHSI or key national stakeholders. And we are asking for some encouragement to be provided to the local health and care system to support the trust’s service transformation model. Finally, I hope the Minister can give a commitment this evening that there is no threat of the trust being broken up, so that it can get on and continue to deliver the improvements that have been put in place.
I will cease my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but I will put on record once again my thanks to the board and the staff for turning around what was the worst-performing trust in the country and, I hope, putting us in a place where we can be proud of our local NHS mental health trust and where patients will receive a much better quality of care not just today but in the future.

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for bringing forward this important debate about the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, and for highlighting the progress that has indeed been made. The difficulties at the trust have been well documented, and there have been performance and quality issues for many years. Those have been highlighted on behalf of their constituents by many Members of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), many of whom are here this evening. However, all the MPs in Norfolk and Suffolk have worked constructively to make progress and to support the trust, patients and staff.
To understand the root causes and to ensure that effective plans are in place to improve patient outcomes, I and many of my ministerial predecessors have met right hon. and hon. Members from Norfolk and Suffolk  collectively on several occasions, alongside NHS England, the CQC and representatives from the trust and the newly formed ICBs, to review progress and to ensure that there was an effective plan to achieve the quality of care that patients and families clearly deserve.
I am pleased that the latest CQC report recognises some key progress in areas that need improvement. The leadership team and staff across the trust should be congratulated on their hard work on that, and on the fact that the trust’s overall rating has moved from “inadequate” to “requires improvement”. Many elements of the report were found to be “good”, however, which indicates that things are moving in the right direction. The CQC also reports that
“the trust had moved at pace to make the necessary changes and…significant improvements could be seen at all levels”,
which is encouraging.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich and other hon. Members from Norfolk and Suffolk were invited to attend a briefing on 23 February, prior to the publication of the inspection. I hope that those who could attend found that session constructive; it sounds as though there is collective agreement that progress has been made. I had a similar session with the CQC the day before and I found the progress encouraging. I was reassured that many of the issues raised previously are being addressed, but there are clearly still significant challenges at the trust that must be addressed, which my hon. Friend outlined well this evening.
I welcome the progress that the trust and its leadership team have made and the fact that they have set out a realistic improvement delivery plan and a commitment to take it forward. I am pleased to hear from the CQC that the trust and all its partners are clear that they cannot take their foot off the pedal. Now is the time to double down on their efforts and not just assume that the progress of the last few months will continue.
I am pleased to confirm that NHS England will continue to provide the existing level of support to the trust. A full-time improvement director is in place, with representation at the trust’s governance meetings, so they have full visibility of the latest data and improvements needed. They will continue to work closely with the trust and key stakeholders to ensure that they continue to build on the recent progress. As part of the next steps, a rapid quality review meeting between the trust and its partners will take place on 27 March.
I will continue to watch closely and to ensure that any concerns that arise are dealt with quickly and at pace. Alongside NHS England, I am keen to ensure that the joint meetings that we were having continue to take place. I intend to hold a follow-up meeting with the relevant Members of Parliament and our system partners in early May, once the rapid quality review meeting has taken place on 27 March and the options review work has concluded. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance about how seriously we are taking the issue.
On mental health more generally, on 23 January I announced that we were commissioning a rapid review into mental health in-patient settings, with a focus on how we use data and evidence to look at the quality of in-patient services in mental health across England more broadly, including complaints and whistleblowing alerts, to identify risks to safety. The review is being chaired by Geraldine Strathdee and will run for eight weeks. We will shortly get her report and I am keen to implement her findings. That relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk made about the culture in mental health and how we change that to improve outcomes for patients. NHS England recently announced a new in-patient quality transformation programme to support cultural change in mental health and to develop a new, bold, reimagined model of care for all NHS-funded mental health services, particularly in an in-patient setting.
In the minute or so I have left, I will touch on a couple of key asks. Capital funding is available for mental health services. A few weeks ago, we announced funding for crisis centres, community support teams and mental health ambulances, so that they can respond more quickly to those going into crisis, in order to try to avoid admissions. More generally, record levels of funding are going into mental health—£2.3 billion extra each year. I encourage the local trust to speak to its integrated care board, which has access to that funding, if it is interested in capital programmes. That is a whistlestop tour of the support that we can give.

Daniel Poulter: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Caulfield: I have only a few seconds left.
In conclusion, I hope that reassures all hon. Member across Norfolk and Suffolk that we take the issue seriously. I am delighted that progress is being made across the trust.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.